Successfully reported this slideshow.
Your SlideShare is downloading. ×

Swat modeling of nutrient bieger

Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Upcoming SlideShare
Swat & modflow
Swat & modflow
Loading in …3
×

Check these out next

1 of 13 Ad

More Related Content

Slideshows for you (20)

Similar to Swat modeling of nutrient bieger (20)

Advertisement

More from Soil and Water Conservation Society (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Advertisement

Swat modeling of nutrient bieger

  1. 1. SWAT modeling of nutrient response to BMPs  in the Beargrass Creek Watershed  Katrin Bieger, Douglas R. Smith, and Jeffrey G. Arnold 2016 SWCS Annual Conference Louisville, KY  July 24‐27, 2016
  2. 2. Outline 1. Introduction 2. Input data and model setup 3. Preliminary results  4. Outlook
  3. 3. Soil and Water Assessment Tool • Arnold et al. (1998), http://swat.tamu.edu/ • Predict the impact of land management practices on water  quantity and quality in large complex watersheds • Subdivision of the watershed into subwatersheds and  Hydrologic Response Units (HRUs) • Limited capability to identify critical source areas 1. Introduction
  4. 4. SWAT+ • Expected to facilitate – maintenance of code and input files – linkage of SWAT and other models – addition of new process subroutines • Flexible spatial representation of interactions and processes  within a watershed using “connect” files • Routing of runoff, sediment and nutrients across the  landscape 1. Introduction
  5. 5. Watershed delineation and stream definition 2. Input data and model setup 10 m DEM Resampling  to 5 m Processing  using TauDEM • Predefined watershed and streams? • Delineate riparian areas?
  6. 6. HRU definition 2. Input data and model setup Land use SSURGO Dominant soils Land use digitized from  aerial photosHydrologic Response Units • Soil properties • Management schedules • Tile drains
  7. 7. Climate and streamflow 2. Input data and model setup Observed Q at  watershed outlet:  6/10/2014‐ 5/16/2016 → calibra on
  8. 8. Observed and simulated streamflow 3. Preliminary results Daily NSE: 0.70 R2: 0.75 PBIAS: ‐16.4 Monthly NSE: 0.88 R2: 0.94
  9. 9. Water balance 2014‐2015 3. Preliminary results Amount [mm] % of precipitation Precipitation 1084 100 ET 609 56 Water yield 353 33 Surface runoff 242 22 Lateral flow 51 5 Tile flow 61 6 Unaccounted for 122 11 too high too low I have no idea what is going on here… • Error in writing output? • Error in model calculations? Source: Sanford & Selnick, 2013
  10. 10. “A major challenge of the ongoing evolution of the model will  be meeting the desire for additional spatial complexity while  maintaining ease of model use.” (Gassman et al. 2007) HRU routing 4. Outlook Challenges: 1. Circular routing 2. Roads
  11. 11. Implementation of BMPs 4. Outlook Reduction  efficiencies  or simulation  of processes? Why use SWAT? • Identification of most effective combination of management  practices • Prediction of long‐term effects of management practices • Consideration of climate change?
  12. 12. Moving forward… 1. Spatial extent/parameterization of tile drains 2. Management schedules and plant growth 3. Soil parameterization 4. Calibration of water balance and streamflow 5. Calibration of nitrogen concentrations/loads 6. Implementation of BMPs in the model 7. HRU routing 4. Outlook
  13. 13. Thank you for your attention! kbieger@brc.tamus.edu

×