Impacts of DEM resolution,source, and resampling technique on SWAT-simulated streamflow |
| |
| Institution: | 1. Geoscience and Digital Earth Centre, Research Institute for Sustainable Environment, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 81310 Skudai, Johor Bahru, Malaysia;2. Department of Geography, Indiana University, 701. E. Kirkwood Ave., Bloomington, IN 47405, USA;3. Department of Environmental Science, Policy and Geography Davis 209, University of South Florida St. Petersburg 140 Seventh Ave South, St. Petersburg, Fl 33701, USA;4. Centre for Environmental Sustainability and Water Security, Research Institute for Sustainable Environment, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 81310 Skudai, Johor Bahru, Malaysia;5. IRD-LOCEAN, Université Pierre et Marie Curie, boîte 100, 4, Place Jussieu, 75252 Paris Cedex 05, France;1. Department of Geography, University of Guelph, 50 Stone Road East, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada;1. Hydrogeology and Environment Group, Science and Technology Faculty, University of the Basque Country UPV/EHU, 48940 Leioa, Basque Country, Spain;2. Spatial Sciences Laboratory, Texas A&M University (TAMU), 77843 College Station, TX, USA;1. Dept. of Civil, Environmental, Aerospace, Materials Engineering (DICAM), Università degli Studi di Palermo, Bld. 8, Viale delle Scienze, 90128 Palermo, Italy;2. Dept. of Agriculture, Food and Forest Sciences (SAAF), Università degli Studi di Palermo, Bld. 4, Viale delle Scienze 12, 90128 Palermo, Italy;3. Regional Center for Water Research (CREA), University of Castilla-La Mancha, Carretera de Las Peñas, km 3200, 02071 Albacete, Spain;1. Geography Section, School of Humanities, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia;2. State Key Laboratory of Hydrology – Water Resources and Hydraulic Engineering, Nanjing Hydraulic Research Institute, Nanjing 210029, China;3. Department of Environmental Science and Engineering, Fudan University, Shanghai 200433, China |
| |
| Abstract: | The sensitivity of streamflow simulated with the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) model to Digital Elevation Model (DEM) resolution, DEM source and DEM resampling technique is still poorly understood. The objective of this study is to compare SWAT model streamflow estimates in the Johor River Basin (JRB), Malaysia for DEMs differing in resolution (from 20 to 1500 m), sources (Shuttle Radar Topography Mission: SRTM v4.1, Advanced Space-borne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer: ASTER GDEM2, EarthEnv-DEM90 and Global Multi-resolution Terrain Elevation Data 2010: GMTED2010) and resampling technique (nearest neighbour, bilinear interpolation, cubic convolution and majority). The key findings were as follows: (1) SRTM v4.1 (Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) = 11.16 m) and EarthEnv-DEM90 (RMSE = 12.4 m) had better vertical accuracy over the JRB compared to the ASTER GDEM2 (RMSE = 16.95 m); (2) Accurate annual streamflow simulations were obtained by using nearly all of the DEM resolutions, as pointed out by a relative error (RE) lower than 7% from 20 to 50 m and from 100 to 800 m DEMs; (3) Prediction errors were the lowest for ASTER GDEM2 (RE = 3.9%), followed by SRTM v4.1 (RE = 5.4%), EarthEnv-DEM90 (RE = 6.3%), and GMTED2010 (RE = 7.3%); (4) the majority and nearest neighbour resampling techniques performed the best (RE of 6.0%), followed by bilinear interpolation (RE of 7.2%) and cubic convolution (7.5%). The study indicates that DEM resolution is the most sensitive SWAT model DEM parameter compared to DEM source and DEM resampling technique for streamflow simulation within SWAT. |
| |
| Keywords: | DEM SWAT model ASTER SRTM Hydrology Sensitivity analysis |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
