Abstract

The overall study objective was to evaluate the applicability of different qualitative and quantitative methods for comparing daily and monthly SWAT computer model hydrologic streamflow predictions to observed data, and to recommend statistical methods for use in future model evaluations. Statistical methods were tested using daily streamflows and monthly equivalent runoff depths. The statistical techniques included linear regression, Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency, nonparametric tests, t-test, objective functions, autocorrelation, and cross-correlation. None of the methods specifically applied to the non-normal distribution and dependence between data points for the daily predicted and observed data. Of the tested methods, median objective functions, sign test, autocorrelation, and cross-correlation were most applicable for the daily data. The robust coefficient of determination (CD*) and robust modeling efficiency (EF*) objective functions were the preferred methods for daily model results due to the ease of comparing these values with a fixed ideal reference value of one. Predicted and observed monthly totals were more normally distributed, and there was less dependence between individual monthly totals than was observed for the corresponding predicted and observed daily values. More statistical methods were available for comparing SWAT model-predicted and observed monthly totals. The 1995 monthly SWAT model predictions and observed data had a regression Rr2 of 0.70, a Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency of 0.41, and the t-test failed to reject the equal data means hypothesis. The Nash-Sutcliffe coefficient and the Rr2 coefficient were the preferred methods for monthly results due to the ability to compare these coefficients to a set ideal value of one.

Document Type

Article

Publication Date

1-2004

Notes/Citation Information

Published in Transactions of the ASAE, v. 47, issue 1, p. 59-68.

© 2004 American Society of Agricultural Engineers

The copyright holder has granted the permission for posting the article here.

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.15870

Related Content

The information reported in this article is part of the Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station (Paper No. 02 - 05 - 31) and is published with approval of the Director.

Share

COinS