4.6 Article

Effect of watershed subdivision on simulation of water balance components

期刊

HYDROLOGICAL PROCESSES
卷 20, 期 5, 页码 1137-1156

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/hyp.5927

关键词

evapotranspiration; GIS; modelling; percolation; remote sensing; runoff; soil water content; sub-watershed; SWAT model; water balance components and watershed

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The present effect of watershed subdivision on simulated water balance components using the thoroughly tested Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) model has been evaluated for the Nagwan watershed in eastern India. Observed meteorological and hydrological data (daily rainfall, temperature, relative humidity and runoff) for the years 1995 to 1998 were collected and used. The watershed and sub-watershed boundaries, slope and soil texture maps were generated using a geographical information system. A supervised classification method was used for land-use/cover classification from satellite imagery of 1996. In order to study the effect of watershed subdivision, the watershed was spatially defined into three decomposition schemes, namely a single watershed, and 12 and 22 sub-watersheds. The simulation using the SWAT model was done for a period of 4 years (1995 to 1998). Results of the study showed a perfect water balance for the Nagwan watershed under all of the decomposition schemes. Results also revealed that the number and size of sub-watersheds do not appreciably affect surface runoff. Except for runoff, there was a marked variation in the individual components of the water balance under the three decomposition schemes. Though the runoff component of the water balance showed negligible variation among the three cases, variations were noticed in the other components: evapotranspiration (5 to 48%), percolation (2 to 26%) and soil water content (0-30 to 22%). Thus, based on this study, it is concluded that watershed subdivision has a significant effect on the water balance components. Copyright (c) 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据