Impact of Watershed Subdivision and Soil Data Resolution on SWAT Model Calibration and Parameter Uncertainty
Identifieur interne : 000650 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 000649; suivant : 000651Impact of Watershed Subdivision and Soil Data Resolution on SWAT Model Calibration and Parameter Uncertainty
Auteurs : Sanjiv Kumar ; Venkatesh MerwadeSource :
- JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association [ 1093-474X ] ; 2009-10.
English descriptors
- KwdEn :
Abstract
Abstract: Impact of watershed subdivision and soil data resolution on Soil Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) model calibration and parameter uncertainty is investigated by creating 24 different watershed model configurations for two study areas in northern Indiana. SWAT autocalibration tool is used to calibrate 14 parameters for simulating seven years of daily streamflow records. Calibrated parameter sets are found to be different for all 24 watershed configurations, however in terms of calibrated model output, their effect is minimal. In some cases, autocalibration is followed by manual calibration to correct for low flows, which were underestimated during autocalibration. In addition to normal validation using four years of streamflow data for each calibrated parameter set, cross‐validation (using a calibrated parameter set from one model configuration to validate observations using another configuration) is performed to investigate the effect of different model configurations on streamflow prediction. Results show that streamflow output during cross‐validation is not affected, thus highlighting the non‐unique nature of calibrated parameters in hydrologic modeling. Finally, parameter uncertainty is investigated by extracting good parameter sets during the autocalibration process. Parameter uncertainty analysis suggests that significant parameters show very narrow range of uncertainty across different watershed configurations compared with nonsignificant parameters. Results from recalibration of some configurations using only six significant parameters were comparable to that from calibration using 14 parameters, suggesting that including fewer significant parameters could reduce the uncertainty arising from model parameters, and also expedite the calibration process.
Url:
DOI: 10.1111/j.1752-1688.2009.00353.x
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:0E0C5786B8E6A6E421537669A212F921E67FC701Le document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">Impact of Watershed Subdivision and Soil Data Resolution on SWAT Model Calibration and Parameter Uncertainty</title><author><name sortKey="Kumar, Sanjiv" sort="Kumar, Sanjiv" uniqKey="Kumar S" first="Sanjiv" last="Kumar">Sanjiv Kumar</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Respectively, Graduate Research Assistant</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Merwade, Venkatesh" sort="Merwade, Venkatesh" uniqKey="Merwade V" first="Venkatesh" last="Merwade">Venkatesh Merwade</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Assistant Professor, School of Civil Engineering, 550 Stadium Mall Drive, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana 47907.</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:0E0C5786B8E6A6E421537669A212F921E67FC701</idno><date when="2009" year="2009">2009</date><idno type="doi">10.1111/j.1752-1688.2009.00353.x</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/0E0C5786B8E6A6E421537669A212F921E67FC701/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">000650</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Impact of Watershed Subdivision and Soil Data Resolution on SWAT Model Calibration and Parameter Uncertainty</title><author><name sortKey="Kumar, Sanjiv" sort="Kumar, Sanjiv" uniqKey="Kumar S" first="Sanjiv" last="Kumar">Sanjiv Kumar</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Respectively, Graduate Research Assistant</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Merwade, Venkatesh" sort="Merwade, Venkatesh" uniqKey="Merwade V" first="Venkatesh" last="Merwade">Venkatesh Merwade</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Assistant Professor, School of Civil Engineering, 550 Stadium Mall Drive, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana 47907.</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></analytic><monogr></monogr><series><title level="j">JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association</title><idno type="ISSN">1093-474X</idno><idno type="eISSN">1752-1688</idno><imprint><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2009-10">2009-10</date><biblScope unit="volume">45</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">5</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="1179">1179</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="1196">1196</biblScope></imprint><idno type="ISSN">1093-474X</idno></series><idno type="istex">0E0C5786B8E6A6E421537669A212F921E67FC701</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1111/j.1752-1688.2009.00353.x</idno><idno type="ArticleID">JAWR353</idno></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">1093-474X</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass><keywords scheme="KwdEn" xml:lang="en"><term>Soil Water Assessment Tool</term><term>autocalibration</term><term>hydrologic modeling</term><term>parameter uncertainty</term><term>watershed subdivision</term></keywords></textClass><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract">Abstract: Impact of watershed subdivision and soil data resolution on Soil Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) model calibration and parameter uncertainty is investigated by creating 24 different watershed model configurations for two study areas in northern Indiana. SWAT autocalibration tool is used to calibrate 14 parameters for simulating seven years of daily streamflow records. Calibrated parameter sets are found to be different for all 24 watershed configurations, however in terms of calibrated model output, their effect is minimal. In some cases, autocalibration is followed by manual calibration to correct for low flows, which were underestimated during autocalibration. In addition to normal validation using four years of streamflow data for each calibrated parameter set, cross‐validation (using a calibrated parameter set from one model configuration to validate observations using another configuration) is performed to investigate the effect of different model configurations on streamflow prediction. Results show that streamflow output during cross‐validation is not affected, thus highlighting the non‐unique nature of calibrated parameters in hydrologic modeling. Finally, parameter uncertainty is investigated by extracting good parameter sets during the autocalibration process. Parameter uncertainty analysis suggests that significant parameters show very narrow range of uncertainty across different watershed configurations compared with nonsignificant parameters. Results from recalibration of some configurations using only six significant parameters were comparable to that from calibration using 14 parameters, suggesting that including fewer significant parameters could reduce the uncertainty arising from model parameters, and also expedite the calibration process.</div></front></TEI><istex><corpusName>wiley</corpusName><author><json:item><name>Sanjiv Kumar</name><affiliations><json:string>Respectively, Graduate Research Assistant</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Venkatesh Merwade</name><affiliations><json:string>Assistant Professor, School of Civil Engineering, 550 Stadium Mall Drive, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana 47907.</json:string></affiliations></json:item></author><subject><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>hydrologic modeling</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>watershed subdivision</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>parameter uncertainty</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>Soil Water Assessment Tool</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>autocalibration</value></json:item></subject><articleId><json:string>JAWR353</json:string></articleId><language><json:string>eng</json:string></language><originalGenre><json:string>article</json:string></originalGenre><abstract>Abstract: Impact of watershed subdivision and soil data resolution on Soil Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) model calibration and parameter uncertainty is investigated by creating 24 different watershed model configurations for two study areas in northern Indiana. SWAT autocalibration tool is used to calibrate 14 parameters for simulating seven years of daily streamflow records. Calibrated parameter sets are found to be different for all 24 watershed configurations, however in terms of calibrated model output, their effect is minimal. In some cases, autocalibration is followed by manual calibration to correct for low flows, which were underestimated during autocalibration. In addition to normal validation using four years of streamflow data for each calibrated parameter set, cross‐validation (using a calibrated parameter set from one model configuration to validate observations using another configuration) is performed to investigate the effect of different model configurations on streamflow prediction. Results show that streamflow output during cross‐validation is not affected, thus highlighting the non‐unique nature of calibrated parameters in hydrologic modeling. Finally, parameter uncertainty is investigated by extracting good parameter sets during the autocalibration process. Parameter uncertainty analysis suggests that significant parameters show very narrow range of uncertainty across different watershed configurations compared with nonsignificant parameters. Results from recalibration of some configurations using only six significant parameters were comparable to that from calibration using 14 parameters, suggesting that including fewer significant parameters could reduce the uncertainty arising from model parameters, and also expedite the calibration process.</abstract><qualityIndicators><score>7.844</score><pdfVersion>1.3</pdfVersion><pdfPageSize>612 x 792 pts (letter)</pdfPageSize><refBibsNative>true</refBibsNative><keywordCount>5</keywordCount><abstractCharCount>1795</abstractCharCount><pdfWordCount>8232</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>57458</pdfCharCount><pdfPageCount>18</pdfPageCount><abstractWordCount>237</abstractWordCount></qualityIndicators><title>Impact of Watershed Subdivision and Soil Data Resolution on SWAT Model Calibration and Parameter Uncertainty</title><genre><json:string>article</json:string></genre><host><volume>45</volume><publisherId><json:string>JAWR</json:string></publisherId><pages><total>18</total><last>1196</last><first>1179</first></pages><issn><json:string>1093-474X</json:string></issn><issue>5</issue><genre><json:string>journal</json:string></genre><language><json:string>unknown</json:string></language><eissn><json:string>1752-1688</json:string></eissn><title>JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association</title><doi><json:string>10.1111/(ISSN)1752-1688</json:string></doi></host><publicationDate>2009</publicationDate><copyrightDate>2009</copyrightDate><doi><json:string>10.1111/j.1752-1688.2009.00353.x</json:string></doi><id>0E0C5786B8E6A6E421537669A212F921E67FC701</id><score>0.11150959</score><fulltext><json:item><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><extension>pdf</extension><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/0E0C5786B8E6A6E421537669A212F921E67FC701/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><extension>zip</extension><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/0E0C5786B8E6A6E421537669A212F921E67FC701/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/0E0C5786B8E6A6E421537669A212F921E67FC701/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Impact of Watershed Subdivision and Soil Data Resolution on SWAT Model Calibration and Parameter Uncertainty</title></titleStmt><publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><availability><p>© 2009 American Water Resources Association</p></availability><date>2009</date></publicationStmt><notesStmt><note type="content">*Paper No. JAWRA‐08‐0161‐P of the Journal of the American Water Resources Association (JAWRA). Discussions are open until six months from print publication.</note></notesStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct type="inbook"><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Impact of Watershed Subdivision and Soil Data Resolution on SWAT Model Calibration and Parameter Uncertainty</title><author xml:id="author-1"><persName><forename type="first">Sanjiv</forename><surname>Kumar</surname></persName><affiliation>Respectively, Graduate Research Assistant</affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-2"><persName><forename type="first">Venkatesh</forename><surname>Merwade</surname></persName><affiliation>Assistant Professor, School of Civil Engineering, 550 Stadium Mall Drive, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana 47907.</affiliation></author></analytic><monogr><title level="j">JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association</title><idno type="pISSN">1093-474X</idno><idno type="eISSN">1752-1688</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1111/(ISSN)1752-1688</idno><imprint><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2009-10"></date><biblScope unit="volume">45</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">5</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="1179">1179</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="1196">1196</biblScope></imprint></monogr><idno type="istex">0E0C5786B8E6A6E421537669A212F921E67FC701</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1111/j.1752-1688.2009.00353.x</idno><idno type="ArticleID">JAWR353</idno></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><creation><date>2009</date></creation><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage><abstract><p>Abstract: Impact of watershed subdivision and soil data resolution on Soil Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) model calibration and parameter uncertainty is investigated by creating 24 different watershed model configurations for two study areas in northern Indiana. SWAT autocalibration tool is used to calibrate 14 parameters for simulating seven years of daily streamflow records. Calibrated parameter sets are found to be different for all 24 watershed configurations, however in terms of calibrated model output, their effect is minimal. In some cases, autocalibration is followed by manual calibration to correct for low flows, which were underestimated during autocalibration. In addition to normal validation using four years of streamflow data for each calibrated parameter set, cross‐validation (using a calibrated parameter set from one model configuration to validate observations using another configuration) is performed to investigate the effect of different model configurations on streamflow prediction. Results show that streamflow output during cross‐validation is not affected, thus highlighting the non‐unique nature of calibrated parameters in hydrologic modeling. Finally, parameter uncertainty is investigated by extracting good parameter sets during the autocalibration process. Parameter uncertainty analysis suggests that significant parameters show very narrow range of uncertainty across different watershed configurations compared with nonsignificant parameters. Results from recalibration of some configurations using only six significant parameters were comparable to that from calibration using 14 parameters, suggesting that including fewer significant parameters could reduce the uncertainty arising from model parameters, and also expedite the calibration process.</p></abstract><textClass xml:lang="en"><keywords scheme="keyword"><list><head>keywords</head><item><term>hydrologic modeling</term></item><item><term>watershed subdivision</term></item><item><term>parameter uncertainty</term></item><item><term>Soil Water Assessment Tool</term></item><item><term>autocalibration</term></item></list></keywords></textClass></profileDesc><revisionDesc><change when="2009-10">Published</change></revisionDesc></teiHeader></istex:fulltextTEI><json:item><original>false</original><mimetype>text/plain</mimetype><extension>txt</extension><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/0E0C5786B8E6A6E421537669A212F921E67FC701/fulltext/txt</uri></json:item></fulltext><metadata><istex:metadataXml wicri:clean="Wiley, elements deleted: body"><istex:xmlDeclaration>version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"</istex:xmlDeclaration><istex:document><component version="2.0" type="serialArticle" xml:lang="en"><header><publicationMeta level="product"><publisherInfo><publisherName>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisherName><publisherLoc>Oxford, UK</publisherLoc></publisherInfo><doi origin="wiley" registered="yes">10.1111/(ISSN)1752-1688</doi><issn type="print">1093-474X</issn><issn type="electronic">1752-1688</issn><idGroup><id type="product" value="JAWR"></id><id type="publisherDivision" value="ST"></id></idGroup><titleGroup><title type="main" sort="JOURNAL OF AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION">JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association</title></titleGroup></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="part" position="10005"><doi origin="wiley">10.1111/jawr.2009.45.issue-5</doi><numberingGroup><numbering type="journalVolume" number="45">45</numbering><numbering type="journalIssue" number="5">5</numbering></numberingGroup><coverDate startDate="2009-10">October 2009</coverDate></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="unit" type="article" position="10" status="forIssue"><doi origin="wiley">10.1111/j.1752-1688.2009.00353.x</doi><idGroup><id type="unit" value="JAWR353"></id></idGroup><countGroup><count type="pageTotal" number="18"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="tocHeading1">A<sc>dditional</sc> T<sc>echnical</sc> P<sc>apers</sc></title></titleGroup><copyright>© 2009 American Water Resources Association</copyright><eventGroup><event type="firstOnline" date="2009-08-19"></event><event type="publishedOnlineFinalForm" date="2009-10-05"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:BPG_TO_WML3G version:2.3.2 mode:FullText source:FullText result:FullText" date="2010-03-06"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WILEY_ML3G_TO_WILEY_ML3GV2 version:3.8.8" date="2014-01-28"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WML3G_To_WML3G version:4.1.7 mode:FullText,remove_FC" date="2014-10-23"></event></eventGroup><numberingGroup><numbering type="pageFirst" number="1179">1179</numbering><numbering type="pageLast" number="1196">1196</numbering></numberingGroup><correspondenceTo>(E‐Mail/Merwade: <email>vmerwade@purdue.edu</email>)</correspondenceTo><linkGroup><link type="toTypesetVersion" href="file:JAWR.JAWR353.pdf"></link></linkGroup></publicationMeta><contentMeta><unparsedEditorialHistory>Received August 29, 2008; accepted May 19, 2009.</unparsedEditorialHistory><countGroup><count type="figureTotal" number="10"></count><count type="tableTotal" number="7"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="main">Impact of Watershed Subdivision and Soil Data Resolution on SWAT Model Calibration and Parameter Uncertainty<link href="#fn1"><sup>1</sup></link></title><title type="shortAuthors">K<sc>umar</sc><sc>and</sc> M<sc>erwade</sc></title><title type="short">I<sc>mpact</sc><sc>of</sc> W<sc>atershed</sc> S<sc>ubdivision</sc><sc>and</sc> S<sc>oil</sc> D<sc>ata</sc> R<sc>esolution</sc><sc>on</sc> SWAT M<sc>odel</sc> C<sc>alibration</sc><sc>and</sc> P<sc>arameter</sc> U<sc>ncertainty</sc></title></titleGroup><creators><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr1" affiliationRef="#a1"><personName><givenNames>Sanjiv</givenNames><familyName>Kumar</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr2" affiliationRef="#a2"><personName><givenNames>Venkatesh</givenNames><familyName>Merwade</familyName></personName></creator></creators><affiliationGroup><affiliation xml:id="a1"><unparsedAffiliation>Respectively, Graduate Research Assistant</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation><affiliation xml:id="a2" countryCode="US"><unparsedAffiliation>Assistant Professor, School of Civil Engineering, 550 Stadium Mall Drive, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana 47907.</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation></affiliationGroup><keywordGroup xml:lang="en"><keyword xml:id="k1">hydrologic modeling</keyword><keyword xml:id="k2">watershed subdivision</keyword><keyword xml:id="k3">parameter uncertainty</keyword><keyword xml:id="k4">Soil Water Assessment Tool</keyword><keyword xml:id="k5">autocalibration</keyword></keywordGroup><abstractGroup><abstract type="main" xml:lang="en"><p><b>Abstract: </b> Impact of watershed subdivision and soil data resolution on Soil Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) model calibration and parameter uncertainty is investigated by creating 24 different watershed model configurations for two study areas in northern Indiana. SWAT autocalibration tool is used to calibrate 14 parameters for simulating seven years of daily streamflow records. Calibrated parameter sets are found to be different for all 24 watershed configurations, however in terms of calibrated model output, their effect is minimal. In some cases, autocalibration is followed by manual calibration to correct for low flows, which were underestimated during autocalibration. In addition to normal validation using four years of streamflow data for each calibrated parameter set, cross‐validation (using a calibrated parameter set from one model configuration to validate observations using another configuration) is performed to investigate the effect of different model configurations on streamflow prediction. Results show that streamflow output during cross‐validation is not affected, thus highlighting the non‐unique nature of calibrated parameters in hydrologic modeling. Finally, parameter uncertainty is investigated by extracting good parameter sets during the autocalibration process. Parameter uncertainty analysis suggests that significant parameters show very narrow range of uncertainty across different watershed configurations compared with nonsignificant parameters. Results from recalibration of some configurations using only six significant parameters were comparable to that from calibration using 14 parameters, suggesting that including fewer significant parameters could reduce the uncertainty arising from model parameters, and also expedite the calibration process.</p></abstract></abstractGroup></contentMeta><noteGroup><note xml:id="fn1"><label>1</label><p> Paper No. JAWRA‐08‐0161‐P of the <i>Journal of the American Water Resources Association</i> (JAWRA). <b>Discussions are open until six months from print publication</b>.</p></note></noteGroup></header></component></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo lang="en"><title>Impact of Watershed Subdivision and Soil Data Resolution on SWAT Model Calibration and Parameter Uncertainty</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="abbreviated" lang="en"><title>Impactof Watershed Subdivisionand Soil Data Resolutionon SWAT Model Calibrationand Parameter Uncertainty</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" contentType="CDATA" lang="en"><title>Impact of Watershed Subdivision and Soil Data Resolution on SWAT Model Calibration and Parameter Uncertainty1</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Sanjiv</namePart><namePart type="family">Kumar</namePart><affiliation>Respectively, Graduate Research Assistant</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Venkatesh</namePart><namePart type="family">Merwade</namePart><affiliation>Assistant Professor, School of Civil Engineering, 550 Stadium Mall Drive, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana 47907.</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource><genre type="article" displayLabel="article"></genre><originInfo><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><place><placeTerm type="text">Oxford, UK</placeTerm></place><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">2009-10</dateIssued><edition>Received August 29, 2008; accepted May 19, 2009.</edition><copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">2009</copyrightDate></originInfo><language><languageTerm type="code" authority="rfc3066">en</languageTerm><languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm></language><physicalDescription><internetMediaType>text/html</internetMediaType><extent unit="figures">10</extent><extent unit="tables">7</extent></physicalDescription><abstract>Abstract: Impact of watershed subdivision and soil data resolution on Soil Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) model calibration and parameter uncertainty is investigated by creating 24 different watershed model configurations for two study areas in northern Indiana. SWAT autocalibration tool is used to calibrate 14 parameters for simulating seven years of daily streamflow records. Calibrated parameter sets are found to be different for all 24 watershed configurations, however in terms of calibrated model output, their effect is minimal. In some cases, autocalibration is followed by manual calibration to correct for low flows, which were underestimated during autocalibration. In addition to normal validation using four years of streamflow data for each calibrated parameter set, cross‐validation (using a calibrated parameter set from one model configuration to validate observations using another configuration) is performed to investigate the effect of different model configurations on streamflow prediction. Results show that streamflow output during cross‐validation is not affected, thus highlighting the non‐unique nature of calibrated parameters in hydrologic modeling. Finally, parameter uncertainty is investigated by extracting good parameter sets during the autocalibration process. Parameter uncertainty analysis suggests that significant parameters show very narrow range of uncertainty across different watershed configurations compared with nonsignificant parameters. Results from recalibration of some configurations using only six significant parameters were comparable to that from calibration using 14 parameters, suggesting that including fewer significant parameters could reduce the uncertainty arising from model parameters, and also expedite the calibration process.</abstract><note type="content">*Paper No. JAWRA‐08‐0161‐P of the Journal of the American Water Resources Association (JAWRA). Discussions are open until six months from print publication.</note><subject lang="en"><genre>keywords</genre><topic>hydrologic modeling</topic><topic>watershed subdivision</topic><topic>parameter uncertainty</topic><topic>Soil Water Assessment Tool</topic><topic>autocalibration</topic></subject><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association</title></titleInfo><genre type="journal">journal</genre><identifier type="ISSN">1093-474X</identifier><identifier type="eISSN">1752-1688</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1111/(ISSN)1752-1688</identifier><identifier type="PublisherID">JAWR</identifier><part><date>2009</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>45</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>5</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>1179</start><end>1196</end><total>18</total></extent></part></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">0E0C5786B8E6A6E421537669A212F921E67FC701</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1111/j.1752-1688.2009.00353.x</identifier><identifier type="ArticleID">JAWR353</identifier><accessCondition type="use and reproduction" contentType="copyright">© 2009 American Water Resources Association</accessCondition><recordInfo><recordContentSource>WILEY</recordContentSource><recordOrigin>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</recordOrigin></recordInfo></mods></metadata><enrichments><json:item><type>multicat</type><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/0E0C5786B8E6A6E421537669A212F921E67FC701/enrichments/multicat</uri></json:item></enrichments><serie></serie></istex></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Ticri/CIDE/explor/CyberinfraV1/Data/Istex/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 000650 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 000650 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Ticri/CIDE
|area= CyberinfraV1
|flux= Istex
|étape= Corpus
|type= RBID
|clé= ISTEX:0E0C5786B8E6A6E421537669A212F921E67FC701
|texte= Impact of Watershed Subdivision and Soil Data Resolution on SWAT Model Calibration and Parameter Uncertainty
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.25. |  |