Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

Sensitivity and uncertainty analysis for streamflow prediction using multiple optimization algorithms and objective functions: San Joaquin Watershed, California

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Modeling Earth Systems and Environment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Uncertainty analysis prior to the model calibration is key to the effective implementation of the hydrologic models. The major application of sensitivity analysis is to indicate the uncertainties in the input parameters of the model, which affects the model performance. There are different optimization algorithms developed and applied in the hydrologic model, which can be performed with different objective functions to calibrate and quantify the uncertainties in the system. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the model calibration performance and sensitivity of parameters using three optimization algorithms and five objective functions for predicting monthly streamflow. Sequential Uncertainty Fitting (SUFI-2), Generalized Likelihood Uncertainty Estimation (GLUE), and Parameter Solution (ParaSol) were used to calibrate the monthly streamflow for the semi-arid San Joaquin Watershed in California by using Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) model. The best performance metrics (R2, NSE, PBIAS, P-factor, and R-factor) were obtained by SUFI-2 while using NSE as the objective function. The coefficient of determination (R2), Nash–Sutcliffe Efficiency (NSE), the percentage of bias (PBIAS), Kling-Gupta efficiency (KGE) and Ratio of the standard deviation of observations to root mean square error (RSR) were used as an objective function to assess the monthly calibration performance. KGE was found to be a suitable objective function to calibrate this complex and snowmelt-dominated watershed. The findings from this study will serve as a guideline for hydro-ecological researchers to achieve further watershed management goals.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abbaspour KC, Yang J, Reichert P, Vejdani M, Haghighat S, Srinivasan R (2008) SWAT calibrating and uncertainty programs–A User Manual. Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology (EAWAG), Zurich, Switzerland

  • Abbaspour KC (2013) SWAT-CUP 2012. SWAT Calibration and Uncertainty Program—A User Manual

  • Abbaspour KC, Johnson C, Van Genuchten MT (2004) Estimating uncertain flow and transport parameters using a sequential uncertainty fitting procedure. Vadose Zone J 3:1340–1352

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abbaspour K, Rouholahnejad E, Vaghefi S, Srinivasan R, Yang H, Kløve B (2015a) A continental-scale hydrology and water quality model for Europe: Calibration and uncertainty of a high-resolution large-scale SWAT model. J Hydrol 524:733–752

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abbaspour KC, Rouholahnejad E, Vaghefi S, Srinivasan R, Yang H, Kløve B (2015b) A continental-scale hydrology and water quality model for Europe: Calibration and uncertainty of a high-resolution large-scale SWAT model. J Hydrol 524:733–752. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2015.03.027

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnold JG, Srinivasan R, Muttiah RS, Williams JR (1998) Large area hydrologic modeling and assessment part I: model development. JAWRA 34:73–89

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnold JG, Moriasi DN, Gassman PW, Abbaspour KC, White MJ, Srinivasan R, Santhi C, Harmel R, Van Griensven A, Van Liew MW (2012) SWAT: model use, calibration, and validation. Trans ASABE 55:1491–1508

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beven K, Binley A (1992) The future of distributed models: model calibration and uncertainty prediction. Hydrol Process 6:279–298

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beven K, Freer J (2001) Equifinality, data assimilation, and uncertainty estimation in mechanistic modelling of complex environmental systems using the GLUE methodology. J Hydrol 249:11–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blasone R-S, Vrugt JA, Madsen H, Rosbjerg D, Robinson BA, Zyvoloski GA (2008) Generalized likelihood uncertainty estimation (GLUE) using adaptive Markov Chain Monte Carlo sampling. Adv Water Resour 31:630–648

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Box GE, Tiao GC (2011) Bayesian inference in statistical analysis. Wiley, Hoboken

    Google Scholar 

  • Burke WD, Ficklin DL (2017) Future projections of streamflow magnitude and timing differ across coastal watersheds of the western United States. Int J Climatol 37:4493–4508

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen H, Luo Y, Potter C, Moran PJ, Grieneisen ML, Zhang M (2017) Modeling pesticide diuron loading from the San Joaquin watershed into the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta using SWAT. Water Res 121:374–385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duan Q, Sorooshian S, Gupta V (1992) Effective and efficient global optimization for conceptual rainfall-runoff models. Water Resour Res 28:1015–1031

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eberhart R, Kennedy J (1995) A new optimizer using particle swarm theory. Micro Machine and Human Science, 1995 MHS’95. In: Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium on. IEEE. pp 39–43

  • Garcia F, Folton N, Oudin L (2017) Which objective function to calibrate rainfall–runoff models for low-flow index simulations? Hydrol Sci J 62:1149–1166

    Google Scholar 

  • Gupta HV, Kling H, Yilmaz KK, Martinez GF (2009) Decomposition of the mean squared error and NSE performance criteria: Implications for improving hydrological modelling. J Hydrol 377:80–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy J, Eberhart R (1995) Proceedings of IEEE international conference on neural networks. Perth, Australia

  • Khoi DN, Thom VT (2015) Parameter uncertainty analysis for simulating streamflow in a river catchment of Vietnam. Global Ecol Conserv 4:538–548

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kouchi DH, Esmaili K, Faridhosseini A, Sanaeinejad SH, Khalili D, Abbaspour KC (2017) Sensitivity of calibrated parameters and water resource estimates on different objective functions and optimization algorithms. Water 9:384

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krause P, Boyle D, Bäse F (2005) Comparison of different efficiency criteria for hydrological model assessment. Adv Geosci 5:89–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar N, Singh SK, Srivastava PK, Narsimlu B (2017) SWAT Model calibration and uncertainty analysis for streamflow prediction of the Tons River Basin, India, using Sequential Uncertainty Fitting (SUFI-2) algorithm. Model Earth Syst Environ 3:30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lettenmaier DP, Gan TY (1990) Hydrologic sensitivities of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Basin, California, to global warming. Water Resour Res 26:69–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luo Y, Zhang X, Liu X, Ficklin D, Zhang M (2008) Dynamic modeling of organophosphate pesticide load in surface water in the northern San Joaquin Valley watershed of California. Environ Pollut 156:1171–1181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Madsen H (2003) Parameter estimation in distributed hydrological catchment modelling using automatic calibration with multiple objectives. Adv Water Resour 26:205–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Molina-Navarro E, Hallack-Alegria M, Martinez-Perez S, Ramirez-Hernandez J, Mungaray-Moctezuma A, Sastre-Merlin A (2016) Hydrological modeling and climate change impacts in an agricultural semiarid region. Case study: Guadalupe River basin, Mexico. Agric Water Manag 175:29–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2015.10.029

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Molina-Navarro E, Andersen HE, Nielsen A, Thodsen H, Trolle D (2017) The impact of the objective function in multi-site and multi-variable calibration of the SWAT model. Environ Model Softw 93:255–267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Monteith J (1965) Evaporation and environment. Symp Soc Exp Biol 19:4

    Google Scholar 

  • Moriasi DN, Arnold JG, Van Liew MW, Bingner RL, Harmel RD, Veith TL (2007) Model evaluation guidelines for systematic quantification of accuracy in watershed simulations. Transa ASABE 50:885–900

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moriasi DN, Gitau MW, Pai N, Daggupati P (2015) Hydrologic and water quality models: performance measures and evaluation criteria. Trans ASABE 58:1763–1785

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morton LW, Olson KR (2014) Addressing soil degradation and flood risk decision making in levee protected agricultural lands under increasingly variable climate conditions. J Environ Protect 5:1220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muleta MK (2011) Model performance sensitivity to objective function during automated calibrations. J Hydrol Eng 17:756–767

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nash JE, Sutcliffe JV (1970) River flow forecasting through conceptual models part I—A discussion of principles. J Hydrol 10:282–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neitsch SL, Arnold JG, Kiniry JR, Williams JR (2011) Soil and water assessment tool theoretical documentation version 2009. Texas Water Resources Institute, Technical Report No. 406. Texas A&M University System. College Station, TX

    Google Scholar 

  • Paul M (2016) Impacts of land use and climate changes on hydrological processes in South Dakota Watersheds

  • Paul M, Rajib MA, Ahiablame L (2017) Spatial and temporal evaluation of hydrological response to climate and land use change in three South Dakota watersheds. JAWRA 53:69–88

    Google Scholar 

  • Rajib MA, Ahiablame L, Paul M (2016) Modeling the effects of future land use change on water quality under multiple scenarios: a case study of low-input agriculture with hay/pasture production. Sustain Water Qual Ecol 8:50–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.swaqe.2016.09.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rostamian R, Jaleh A, Afyuni M, Mousavi SF, Heidarpour M, Jalalian A, Abbaspour KC (2008) Application of a SWAT model for estimating runoff and sediment in two mountainous basins in central Iran. Hydrol Sci J 53:977–988

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schilling KE, Gassman PW, Kling CL, Campbell T, Jha MK, Wolter CF, Arnold JG (2014) The potential for agricultural land use change to reduce flood risk in a large watershed. Hydrol Process 28:3314–3325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Service USC (1972) Sect. 4: hydrology. In: National Engineering Handbook. SCS, USDA, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Service YW (2017) U.S. Climate Data

  • Shao W, Cai J, Liu J, Luan Q, Mao X, Yang G, Wang J, Zhang H, Zhang J (2017) Impact of water scarcity on the Fenhe River Basin and Mitigation Strategies. Water 9:30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh J, Knapp HV, Arnold J, Demissie M (2005) Hydrological modeling of the Iroquois River watershed using HSPF and SWAT. JAWRA 41:343–360

    Google Scholar 

  • Singh V, Bankar N, Salunkhe SS, Bera AK, Sharma J (2013) Hydrological stream flow modelling on Tungabhadra catchment: parameterization and uncertainty analysis using SWAT CUP. Curr Sci:1187–1199

  • Talib A, Randhir TO (2017) Climate change and land use impacts on hydrologic processes of watershed systems. J Water Clim Change 8:jwc2017064

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thiemig V, Rojas R, Zambrano-Bigiarini M, De Roo A (2013) Hydrological evaluation of satellite-based rainfall estimates over the Volta and Baro-Akobo Basin. J Hydrol 499:324–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2013.07.012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uniyal B, Jha MK, Verma AK (2015) Parameter identification and uncertainty analysis for simulating streamflow in a river basin of Eastern India. Hydrol Process 29:3744–3766

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • USGS-NED (2013) National Elevation Dataset: United States Geological Survey National Map Viewer.. Available at: http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/ Accessed 10 March, 2013

  • van Griensven A, Meixner T (2006) Methods to quantify and identify the sources of uncertainty for river basin water quality models. Water Sci Technol 53:51–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang R, Bowling LC, Cherkauer KA (2016) Estimation of the effects of climate variability on crop yield in the Midwest USA. Agric For Meteorol 216:141–156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu H, Chen B (2015a) Evaluating uncertainty estimates in distributed hydrological modeling for the Wenjing River watershed in China by GLUE, SUFI-2, and ParaSol methods. Ecol Eng 76:110–121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu H, Chen B (2015b) Evaluating uncertainty estimates in distributed hydrological modeling for the Wenjing River watershed in China by GLUE, SUFI-2, and ParaSol methods. Ecol Eng 76:110–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2014.05.014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu Y, Liu S, Li Z (2012) Identifying potential areas for biofuel production and evaluating the environmental effects: a case study of the James River Basin in the Midwestern United States. GCB Bioenergy 4:875–888

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xue C, Chen B, Wu H (2013) Parameter uncertainty analysis of surface flow and sediment yield in the Huolin Basin, China. J Hydrol Eng 19:1224–1236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang J, Reichert P, Abbaspour K, Xia J, Yang H (2008) Comparing uncertainty analysis techniques for a SWAT application to the Chaohe Basin in China. J Hydrol 358:1–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yapo PO, Gupta HV, Sorooshian S (1996) Automatic calibration of conceptual rainfall-runoff models: sensitivity to calibration data. J Hydrol 181:23–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yesuf HM, Melesse AM, Zeleke G, Alamirew T (2016) Streamflow prediction uncertainty analysis and verification of SWAT model in a tropical watershed. Environ Earth Sci 75:806

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang J, Li Q, Guo B, Gong H (2015) The comparative study of multi-site uncertainty evaluation method based on SWAT model. Hydrol Process 29:2994–3009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang L, Karthikeyan R, Bai Z, Wang J (2017) Spatial and temporal variability of temperature, precipitation, and streamflow in upper Sang-kan basin, China. Hydrol Process 31:279–295

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the United States Department of Agriculture-National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Grant number 20166800725064, that established CONSERVE: A Center of Excellence at the Nexus of Sustainable Water Reuse, Food, and Health.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Environmental Science and Technology, University of Maryland, 1430 An. Sci. Bldg., College Park, MD, 20740, USA

    Manashi Paul & Masoud Negahban-Azar

Authors
  1. Manashi Paul
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Masoud Negahban-Azar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Masoud Negahban-Azar.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Paul, M., Negahban-Azar, M. Sensitivity and uncertainty analysis for streamflow prediction using multiple optimization algorithms and objective functions: San Joaquin Watershed, California. Model. Earth Syst. Environ. 4, 1509–1525 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40808-018-0483-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40808-018-0483-4

Keywords