hydrology

Article
Hydrological Modeling and Runoff Mitigation
in an Ungauged Basin of Central Vietnam Using
SWAT Model
Ammar Rafiei Emam 1, *, Martin Kappas 1 , Nguyen Hoang Khanh Linh 2 and Tsolmon Renchin 3
1 Department of Cartography, GIS and Remote Sensing, Georg-August University Goettingen,
Goettingen 37077, Germany; mkappas@uni-goettingen.de
2 Faculty of Land Resources and Agricultural Environment (FLRAE), Hue University of Agriculture and
Forestry (HUAF), Hue city 0084,Vietnam; nguyenhoangkhanhlinh@huaf.edu.vn
3 Remote Sensing and Space Science Laboratory, National University of Mongolia (NUM), Ulaanbaatar 14201,
Mongolia; tsolmonren@gmail.com
* Correspondence: rafiei99@gmail.com; Tel.: +49-551-398029

Academic Editor: Luca Brocca

Received: 11 January 2017; Accepted: 19 February 2017; Published: 28 February 2017

Abstract: The A-Luoi district in Thua Thien Hue province of Vietnam is under extreme pressure from
natural and anthropogenic factors. The area is ungauged and suffering from data scarcity. To evaluate
the water resources availability and water management, we used Soil and Water Assessment Tools
(SWAT). A multi-approach technique was used to calibrate the hydrological model. The model was
calibrated in three time scales: daily, monthly and yearly by river discharge, actual evapotranspiration
(ETa) and crop yield, respectively. The model was calibrated with Nash-Sutcliffe and R2 coefficients
greater than 0.7, in daily and monthly scales, respectively. In the yearly scale, the crop yield inside
the model was calibrated and validated with Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) less than 2.4 ton/ha.
The water resource components were mapped temporally and spatially. The outcomes showed that
the highest mean monthly surface runoff, 323 to 369 mm, between September and November, resulted
in extreme soil erosion and sedimentation. The monthly average of actual evapotranspiration was the
highest in May and lowest in December. Furthermore, installing Best Management Practices (BMPs)
reduced surface runoff in agricultural lands. However, using event-based hydrological and hydraulic
models in the prediction and simulation of flooding events is recommended in further studies.

Keywords: water management; regionalization; MODIS; best management practice; surface runoff

1. Introduction
Hydrological modeling of water cycle in areas with extreme events and natural hazards
(e.g., flooding, droughts) is imperative for sustainable management of soil and water resources.
Understanding water resources availability would help stakeholders and policymakers to plan and
develop an area. There are various hydrological models that can estimate water resource availability
(e.g., lumped models, physical distributed and semi-distributed models, empirical models, statistical
models). Among these, semi-distributed hydrological models can simulate water balance spatially
based on various soils, land uses, topography and climate conditions. One of these hydrological
models is SWAT [1] which is tested in various world climates from arid and semi-arid regions [2]
to humid and tropical areas [3]. Moreover, it is able to simulate water resources in large scales to
regional scales. For example, Schuol et al. [4] estimated blue and green water availability in the African
continent. Phuong et al. [5] evaluated the surface runoff and soil erosion in a regional area in Vietnam.
One of the concerns in hydrological modeling is the uncertainty of parameters; therefore, Qiao et al. [6]
used a multi-objective function to reduce this uncertainty in the SWAT model.

Hydrology 2017, 4, 16; doi:10.3390/hydrology4010016 www.mdpi.com/journal/hydrology

Hydrology 2017, 4, 16 2 of 17

Surface runoff, soil erosion and flooding are the main issues in humid and tropical areas due to
heavy rainfall [7]. Various researchers have studied climate variabilities and human activities on soil
erosion, water quality and hydrological process [8,9].
Vietnams tropical region is very prone to soil erosion and surface runoff. Approximately 40%
of natural areas are at risk of erosion [10]. In recent years, most of the forested areas, particularly in
Central Vietnam, were converted into agricultural lands, which resulted in surface runoff and soil
erosion [11]. Additionally, the hydrological behavior of watersheds in Vietnam is changing due to
anthropogenic factors. The evidence of this comes from rising of soil erosion, surface runoff and floods
in Central Vietnam [5]. There is no comprehensive framework to mitigate the environmental hazards
in this area; therefore, we created a hydrological model of Central Vietnam with a case study in the
area of A-Luoi district in Hue province.
The A-Luoi district in Central Vietnam is under high socio-economic pressure, which resulted in
various natural hazards such as flooding and soil erosion. Lack of data is one of the main obstacles for
policymakers in this area. The main goal of this research is to set up a hydrological model in the A-Luoi
area as a representative case study of Central Vietnam and to simulate the water balance components
(e.g., water yield, soil moisture, actual evapotranspiration) in order to understand the status of water
resources in this area. Assessments of surface runoff, and soil erosion are the further goals of this study.
We calibrated the hydrological model using multiple calibration approaches by satellite images and
regionalization technique. Finally, we presented the best management practices adapted to A-Luoi
area to reduce surface runoff and soil erosion.

2. Material and Methods

2.1. Study Area

The study area is a part of A-Luoi district, which is located in the center of Vietnam. The A-Luoi
district consists of three watersheds. The first watershed in the west of the A-Luoi, where the main
river, called the Xe Khong River, flows toward Laos. This watershed has an area of approximately
542 km2 . The second watershed is situated in the middle of A-Luoi and the main river, Song Sia
River, flows into the Tam Giang lagoon. The watershed has an area of approximately 410 km2 .
The third watershed in the east of A-Luoi district has an area of approximately 506 km2 . The river
in this watershed, called Song Huu Trach River, flows into the Song Huong lagoon (Figure 1).
We selected the second watershed as our study area, while it is the main part of A-Luoi district.
The annual rainfall in this watershed varies from 2228 mm to 5495 mm (long term climate data).
According to the Soil Taxonomic classification [12], Ferralic Acrisols is the dominant soil type in this
area. There are Humic Acrisols and Lithic Leptosols types in the northwestern and southeastern part
of A-Luoi as well. The watershed has diverse elevations from 19 to 1777 meters above sea level from
the north to the west of the basin. Figure 1 shows the study area in A-Luoi district including climate
and hydrometric stations around the district.
Hydrology 2017, 4, 16 3 of 17
Hydrology 2017, 4, 16 3 of 17

Figure
Figure 1. 1.Study
Studyarea
areashowing
showingstream
stream networks,
networks, climate
climate and
and hydrometric
hydrometricstations
stationsand
andthetheA-luoi
A-luoi
district border. The A-Luoi district consists of three watersheds, which are shown in this
district border. The A-Luoi district consists of three watersheds, which are shown in this figure.figure. The
Nam Dong watershed is a nearby watershed to A-Luoi with measured discharge data,
The Nam Dong watershed is a nearby watershed to A-Luoi with measured discharge data, which used which used
forfor regionalization
regionalization approach.
approach.

2.2. Data Acquisition

2.2. Data Acquisition
There are four climate stations, three stations outside the boundary (Khe Sanh, Hue and Nam
There are four climate stations, three stations outside the boundary (Khe Sanh, Hue and Nam
dong stations) with the monthly data available and one station inside the boundary with the daily
dong
datastations)
from 2005 withto the
2013monthly data available
(Aluoi station) (Figure and oneused
1). We station inside
daily thedata
climate boundary withrainfall,
(e.g., daily the daily
data from 2005
maximum andtominimum
2013 (Aluoi station) (Figure
temperature, 1). We and
solar radiation, used daily humidity)
relative climate datafor (e.g., dailyinputs,
the model rainfall,
maximum and minimum temperature, solar radiation, and relative humidity)
and monthly data for the Weather Generator (WGN) parameters. There are no hydrometric stations for the model inputs,
and monthly
inside data
or at the for the
outlet Weather
of the A-LuoiGenerator (WGN)
district. The closestparameters.
hydrometric There
stationare no hydrometric
to A-Luoi, stations
called Thuong
inside
Nhat,or atis the outlet
located ofof
east the
theA-Luoi district.
study area that The
usedclosest hydrometric station
for parameterization to A-Luoi,
in A-Luoi called
watershed. Thuong
The FAO
Nhat, is located east of the study area that used for parameterization in A-Luoi
(Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations)-soil map [13] was improved based on watershed. The FAO
(Food
localandsoilAgriculture
data and was Organization
also used in of the
this United
study. ThisNations)-soil map [13]
soil map contains was improved
information for twobased on local
soil depths:
soilindata and (030
topsoil was alsocm)used
and in this study.
subsoil (30100Thiscm).
soil Land
map contains information
use statistics in 2010 for
was two soil depths:
obtained from in
Department
topsoil (030 cm) of and
Natural Resources
subsoil (30100andcm).Environment in Thua
Land use statistics in Thien
2010 wasHueobtained
Province. TheDepartment
from land use
of Natural Resources and Environment in Thua Thien Hue Province. The land use statistics contains
Hydrology 2017, 4, 16 4 of 17

different classes such as protected forest area, evergreen forests, bare lands, residential area, paddy
Hydrology 2017, 4, 16 4 of 17
rice lands and other agricultural lands. Forest is dominant land use in the study area and more than
90% of thestatistics
area covedcontains bydifferent
evergreen forests.
classes such asRice is dominant
protected agriculture
forest area, crops bare
evergreen forests, and lands,
cultivated two
residential area, paddy rice lands and other agricultural lands.
times per year: Summer-Autumn and Winter-Spring periods (Figure 2). The surface Forest is dominant land use in the
water is the
study area and more than 90% of the area coved by evergreen forests. Rice is dominant agriculture
sources ofcrops
irrigation/inundation for rice. Digital Elevation model (DEM) was derived
and cultivated two times per year: Summer-Autumn and Winter-Spring periods (Figure 2). The
from Shuttle
Radar Topography
surface waterMission (SRTM)
is the sources with 30m resolution.
of irrigation/inundation for rice.Crop
Digitalschedule and yield
Elevation model (DEM)data
was [14] were
implemented in the
derived frommodel
Shuttle in order
Radar to simulate
Topography crop
Mission growth
(SRTM) within SWAT.
30m Moderate
resolution. Resolution
Crop schedule and Imaging
yield data [14] were implemented in the model in order to simulate crop growth
Spectroradiometer (MODIS) time series data (i.e., MOD16 product, including potential and actual in SWAT. Moderate
Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) time series data (i.e., MOD16 product, including
evapotranspiration) were used to extract monthly evapotranspiration. These data were further used to
potential and actual evapotranspiration) were used to extract monthly evapotranspiration. These
calibrate the hydrological
data were further used model.
to calibrate the hydrological model.

Figure 2. Paddy rice schedule plan in A-Luoi district.

Figure 2. Paddy rice schedule plan in A-Luoi district.
2.3. Model Configuration
2.3. Model Configuration
SWAT is able to predict the impact of land management practices on soil and water.
Additionally, SWAT can simulate water quality and quantity as well as crop growth. The main
SWAT is able to predict the impact of land management practices on soil and water. Additionally,
components of the SWAT model consist of weather, hydrology, plant growth, nutrient, pesticide,
SWAT canbacteria
simulate water
and land quality and
management [1]. Inquantity
this study,as
wewell as only
focused cropongrowth. The main
the hydrologic, components of
plant growth
the SWATandmodel consist of weather,
land management components hydrology,
of the SWAT plant
model.growth,
In SWAT, nutrient,
a watershedpesticide, bacteria
is partitioned into and land
sub-basins using DEM, which are then further subdivided into HRUs (Hydrological
management [1]. In this study, we focused only on the hydrologic, plant growth and land management Response Units)
with homogenous soil, land use and slope characteristics. HRUs are the basis of water balance
components of the SWAT model. In SWAT, a watershed is partitioned into sub-basins using DEM,
calculation. The water in each HRU can be stored in four levels: snow, soil profile (02 m), shallow
which areaquifer
then further
(02 m) andsubdivided
deep aquiferinto HRUs
(220 (Hydrological
m). Rafiei Emam et al. [15]Response Units)
revealed that with
a single homogenous
HRU could soil,
land use and slopethecharacteristics.
not show characteristics of aHRUs are Therefore,
sub-basin. the basiswe ofused
water balance
multiple HRUs calculation.
for sub-basinThe water in each
analysis
HRU can bein this research.
stored In SWAT,
in four a water
levels: snow, balance
soil calculation
profile (02 is simulated in twoaquifer
m), shallow separate (02
components:
m) andlanddeep aquifer
phase and routing phase. The land phase controls the amount of water, sediment, nutrient and
(220 m). Rafiei Emam et al. [15] revealed that a single HRU could not show the characteristics of a
pesticide loadings to the main channel in each sub-basin, while the routing phase defines the
sub-basin.movement
Therefore, we used
of water, multiple
sediment HRUs for
and nutrient sub-basin
loadings from theanalysis
channel in this research.
networks In SWAT,
to the outlet. The a water
balance calculation
water balance is is
simulated inthe
calculated in two separate
land components:
phase using the followingland phase
Equation (1):and routing phase. The land
phase controls the amount of water, = sediment,
+ ( nutrient
and pesticide
loadings to the main
), (1) channel
in each sub-basin,
where
while the routing
is the soil water content,
phase defines the movement of
is the initial soil water content,
water, sediment and
is the amount of
nutrient
loadings from the channel indicates
precipitation, networks to the
surface outlet. The
runoff, shows water balance
actual is calculated in is
evapotranspiration, thetheland phase
using the amount
following Equationand
of percolation (1): shows the return flow.
In this study, surface runoff was simulated using a Soil Conservation Service Curve Number
(SCS-CN). The runoff curve numbert is an empirical parameter used for predicting direct runoff or
infiltration from SW t = excess.
rainfall
SW0 +The curve Qsurmethod
( Rdaynumber f ETwas
a developed
Wseep Qbygwthe), USDA Natural (1)
Resources Conservation Service [16]. i =1SCS is widely used and is an efficient method for determining
the approximate amount of direct runoff from a rainfall event in a particular area. It is based on the
where SWarea's
t is the soil water
hydrologic soil group, landSW
content, 0 is
use, the initial
treatment and soil watercondition.
hydrologic Rday is the
content,Percolation wasamount of
precipitation, Qsur f indicates surface runoff, ETa shows actual evapotranspiration, Wseep is the amount
of percolation and Q gw shows the return flow.
In this study, surface runoff was simulated using a Soil Conservation Service Curve Number
(SCS-CN). The runoff curve number is an empirical parameter used for predicting direct runoff or
infiltration from rainfall excess. The curve number method was developed by the USDA Natural
Resources Conservation Service [16]. SCS is widely used and is an efficient method for determining the
approximate amount of direct runoff from a rainfall event in a particular area. It is based on the areas
Hydrology 2017, 4, 16 5 of 17

hydrologic soil group, land use, treatment and hydrologic condition. Percolation was simulated with a
layered storage routing technique combined with a crack flow model; and potential evapotranspiration
(PET) was simulated using the Penman-Monteith method. The actual evapotranspiration was predicted
Hydrology 2017, 4, 16
based on PET in addition to soil and crop factors based on the methodology developed by5 Ritchie of 17
[17].
The daily value of the Leaf Area Index (LAI) was used to divide the PET into
simulated with a layered storage routing technique combined with a crack flow model; and potential potential soil evaporation
and potential plant transpiration.
evapotranspiration (PET) was LAI and root
simulated using development were predicted
the Penman-Monteith method.byThe the actual
crop growth
evapotranspiration
component of SWAT. In SWAT, was predicted based on
soil erosion PET in addition
is calculated withtoMUSLE
soil and algorithm
crop factors(Modified
based on the Universal
methodology developed by Ritchie [17]. The daily value of the Leaf
Soil Loss Equation) [18], which is a modified version of USLE (Universal Soil Loss Equation) Area Index (LAI) was used to [19].
divide the PET into potential soil evaporation and potential plant transpiration. LAI and root
USLE is a function of rainfall energy, while MUSLE is a function of runoff.
development were predicted by the crop growth component of SWAT. In SWAT, soil erosion is
Tocalculated
better understand
with MUSLE the hydrological
algorithm (Modifiedbehavior,
Universal which leads
Soil Loss to a better
Equation) calibration
[18], which of the model,
is a modified
we usedversion
an automated digital filter
of USLE (Universal Soilprogram [20] to [19].
Loss Equation) separate
USLEdischarge
is a function intoofbase flow
rainfall and surface
energy, while runoff.
Using this
MUSLEapproach, the of
is a function low-frequency
runoff. base flow component was separated from high-frequency
To better understand
runoff components through the hydrological
a low-pass behavior,
filter [21]. which
Theseleads
data to afurther
better calibration
were used of the
tomodel,
calibrate the
we used an automated digital filter program [20] to separate discharge
hydrological model. Meaurio et al. [22] used the same method to calculate a base flow constant. into base flow and surface
runoff. Using this approach, the low-frequency base flow component was separated from high-
More details are presented by Arnold and Allen [23]. In this research, watershed was delineated
frequency runoff components through a low-pass filter [21]. These data further were used to calibrate
into 20 the
sub-basins
hydrological using an Meaurio
model. SRTM map andused
et al. [22] stream network
the same method intoan ArcGIS
calculate environment.
a base flow constant. The area
of watershed is approximately
More details are presented by41,000
Arnoldha. andSome 54 HRUs
Allen [23]. In this were created
research, by integrating
watershed was delineated land
intouse, soil
and slope maps. Because
20 sub-basins using anA-Luoi
SRTM map is a and
mountainous
stream network area,inwe an estimated precipitation
ArcGIS environment. (PLAPS)
The area of and
watershed is approximately 41,000 ha. Some 54 HRUs were created by
temperature (TLAPS) difference by elevation. PLAPS is precipitation lapse rate (mm H2 O/km), and integrating land use, soil and
TLAPSslope
refersmaps. Because A-Luoi is a mountainous
to temperature lapse rate ( C/km). area, we estimated precipitation (PLAPS) and
For this aim, all sub-basins with a difference in
temperature (TLAPS) difference by elevation. PLAPS is precipitation lapse rate (mm H2O/km), and
elevation greater than 100 m were selected and PLAPS and TLAPS were applied. The PLAPS and
TLAPS refers to temperature lapse rate (C/km). For this aim, all sub-basins with a difference in
TLAPS elevation
were estimated at 243.2 5.8and C per km using climate and elevation data. Rice is the
greater than 100 mmm were and
selected PLAPS and TLAPS were applied. The PLAPS and
dominant agriculture
TLAPS crop in
were estimated A-Luoi;
at 243.2 mm therefore,
and 5.8 Cthe per crop schedule
km using climatefor andrice was applied
elevation data. Ricetoisthe
the model.
dominant agriculture crop in A-Luoi; therefore, the crop schedule for rice was applied to the model.
2.4. Calibration, Validation and Uncertainty Analysis
2.4. Calibration, Validation and Uncertainty Analysis
The A-Luoi district is ungauged; therefore, to calibrate the models we used different approaches.
The A-Luoi district is ungauged; therefore, to calibrate the models we used different approaches.
The model was calibrated and validated by the daily river discharge, yearly crop yield and monthly
The model was calibrated and validated by the daily river discharge, yearly crop yield and monthly
evapotranspiration during
evapotranspiration January
during January2006
2006and
and December 2010,
December 2010, with
with the the three-year
three-year warm warm up period
up period
based on data
based onin 2005,
data repeated
in 2005, three
repeated times.
three times.Figure
Figure 33shows
showsthethe work
work planplan ofcalibration
of the the calibration
process.process.

Figure 3. Flowchart of research, showing calibration procedure.

Figure 3. Flowchart of research, showing calibration procedure.
Hydrology 2017, 4, 16 6 of 17

2.4.1. Regionalization Approach

The hydrological models parameters for ungauged basins (i.e., without any river discharge
measurements) can be predicted using the regionalization method [24,25]. Usually watersheds with
similar characteristics show similar hydrological treatments and therefore the hydrological parameters
can be transferred from the same watersheds. This transformation is called regionalization. A number
of basin characteristics (e.g., soil, topography, land use, precipitation, and temperature) were presented
in Samaniego and Bardossy [26]. There are different methods for this transformation including
regression methods [27], spatial proximity [28] and physical similarity [29]. Parajka et al. [30] used
geostatistical methods (i.e., Kriging) to transfer model parameters. Sun et al. [31] used a new approach
to calibrate hydrological parameters in ungauged basins. They used the river water level obtained from
satellite radar altimetry observations at the outlet of the basin instead of river discharge. In another
work, Sun et al. [32] used the river flow width obtained through satellite observation as a surrogate for
river discharge records to calibrate a hydrological model.
Because there is not a river discharge station at the outlet of our study area and we cannot calibrate
the relevant parameters directly, we used regionalization approach to transfer the relevant parameters
from the nearby catchment to our study area. To do that, Thuong Nhat catchment, 45 km away from
the center of A-Luoi, with the observed discharge data was selected. Data is available at daily scale
from 2005 to 2010 at Nhat station in this catchment. The characteristics of the two basins are similar
with difference annual precipitation of 2.6%. More physical characteristics are presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Properties of the donor and target catchments.

Rain Rainfall
Climate Area Slope Elevation Land-
Catchment River Gauge (Annual) Soil * L/W **
Station Km2 (Mean) % (Mean) m Use *
Station mm
Song Sia Orthic
A-Luoi Aluoi Aluoi 3900 408 38 495 Forest 1.90
River Acrisols
Thuong Nam Ta Trach Nam Orthic
3800 125 42 490 Forest 1.05
Nhat Dong River Dong Acrisols
* Dominant landuse and soil type are mentioned; ** L/W: Length/Width of catchment.

We set up a new model in this basin and the model was calibrated based on the river discharge
data. The calibrated parameters were further transferred into our original model of A-Luoi basin.
The SUFI-2 algorithm (Sequential Uncertainty Fitting, ver. 2) [33] in the SWAT-CUP package was used
to calibrate and analyze uncertainty. Nash-Sutcliffe coefficient (Equation (2)) was computed as the
objective function for river discharge in a gauged basin:

2
in=1 ( Qobs Qsim )
NSE = 1 2
(2)
in=1 ( Qobs Qobs )

where Qobs and Qsim are the measured and simulated data, respectively, n is the total number of data
records and Qobs is the mean measured data.
In SUFI-2 all sources of uncertainty (e.g., uncertainty in input data, conceptual model and
parameters) are represented in model output. The degree of uncertainty is measured by two factors:
P-factor, which represents the percentage of measured data bracketed by 95% prediction uncertainty
(95PPU), and R-factor, which is the ratio of average width of 95PPU to standard deviation of measured
data. The model attempts to bracket most of the data (P-factor = 1) within a narrow band (R-factor = 0).
However, often a balance must be reached between these two factors.

2.4.2. Calibration Based on Crop Yield

We calibrated a crop yield because calibration using a crop yield gives more confidence on actual
evapotranspiration, and hence give the precise estimation of other water components such as, soil
Hydrology 2017, 4, 16 7 of 17

moisture, surface runoff and percolation [15]. The SUFI-2 algorithm was used to calibrate the crop
parameters and uncertainty analysis. A mean square error was used as the objective function. There are
several parameters that affect crop yield. These parameters include the heat unit (HU), harvest index
(HI), and bio target (BIO-TARG). The HU is the amount of heat that brings plants to maturity, the HI
is the fraction of above-ground dry biomass to yield crops, and the BIO-TARG is the potential plant
yield. We optimized these parameters in order to calibrate crop yield in our hydrological model.
Plant growth in the model is usually inhibited by temperature, water, nitrogen and phosphorous
stress factors. Rafiei Emam et al. [34] evaluated the water and temperature stresses of winter wheat
using a climate change model. Temperature is a very important factor for plant growth; plants can
grow only if the mean temperature exceeds the base temperature of plant. The accumulation of daily
mean air temperatures above the plants optimum temperature over the plant-growth period is called
a heat unit. The base (or optimum) temperature varies for different plants, for instance, paddy rice has
base temperature of 10 C.

2.4.3. Calibration Based on ETa Using MODIS Products

Because agriculture covers only a small part of A-Luoi and most of the lands in the study area are
covered by forest, we used ETa products of MODIS in order to calibrate the SWAT model. There have
been several attempts to use satellite observation of evapotranspiration to calibrate a hydrological
model. Immerzeel and Droogers, [35] used MODIS satellite images to calibrate the hydrological model
using evapotranspiration data. Cheema et al. [36] calibrated the SWAT model in the irrigated Indus
basin based on spatially distributed ET derived from remotely sensed data.
Nash-Sutcliff efficiency (NSE) and coefficient of determination were used to assess the SWAT
model based on ETa calibration. NSE was used as the objective function to compare the monthly
observed and simulated ETa.
We used MOD16 products [37] of MODIS from 2006 to 2013 on a monthly scale. We downloaded
90 images (6 images are missing) in Central Vietnam (h = 28 and v = 7). We further extracted PET
and ETa of MOD16 products in ArcGIS environment in our study area and summarized data in each
sub-basin. We analyzed the reliability of the data and finally these data were used to calibrate the
SWAT hydrologic model.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Regionalization Outcome

The results of calibration and validation of Nam Dong watershed, a nearby watershed to A-Luoi,
showed a good performance of the model with high NS (0.74, 0.51) and R2 (0.71, 0.88) both for
calibration and validation, respectively. The sensitivity analysis shows that the curve number (CN) is
the most sensitive parameter followed by Base Flow Alpha Factor for Bank Storage (Alpha-BNK) and
effective hydraulic conductivity in the main channel (CH-K2). The importance of these parameters
has been reported by some other researchers. Rafiei Emam et al. [2,38] mentioned that CN is the most
sensitive parameter in mountainous area. Luo et al. [39] revealed that the parameters of CH-K2 and
Alpha-BNK play important roles in the calibration of the SWAT model in Tropical areas.
Comparing observed with simulated discharge shows that there is a good agreement between the
simulated daily stream flow and the observed data. Additionally, the scatter plot between observed
and simulated data for both calibration and validation show the pretty high performance of the
model (Figure 4). Therefore, the calibrated parameters were transferred into the A-Luoi model for
further processing.
Hydrology 2017, 4, 16 8 of 17
Hydrology 2017, 4, 16 8 of 17

Figure 4. Scatter plot of daily river discharge for calibration (a) from 1 January, 2006 to 31 December,
Figure 4. Scatter plot of daily river discharge for calibration (a) from 1 January, 2006 to 31 December, 2008
2008 and (b) the validation period from 1 January, 2009 to 31 December, 2010.
and (b) the validation period from 1 January, 2009 to 31 December, 2010.
3.2. Parameterization for Crop Yield
3.2. Parameterization for Crop Yield
The sub-basins with paddy rice cultivations (i.e., sub-basins located south of the A-Luoi area)
wereTheselected
sub-basins with
for the paddy rice cultivations
parameterization of the model (i.e.,based
sub-basins
on croplocated south
yield. The of the A-Luoi
calibration based area)
on
were
cropselected
makesforthethe parameterization
model of the model
results more confident [15].based
There on is acrop yield.
direct The calibration
relationship betweenbased
crop on crop
yield
makes
and the model results more
evapotranspiration; confident
therefore, the [15]. There isofa the
calibration direct relationship
model based on between crop yieldthe
yield improves and
evapotranspiration;
simulation of othertherefore, the calibration of the model based on yield improves the simulation of
water components.
The sensitivity
other water components. analysis showed that all crop parameters (e.g., HEAT-UNIT, BIO-TARG, HI)
wereThesensitive to crop
sensitivity yield.showed
analysis Figure 5that
shows the results
all crop of calibration
parameters and validation
(e.g., HEAT-UNIT, of the paddy
BIO-TARG, HI)rice
were
yield. As
sensitive to illustrated,
crop yield.observed
Figure 5 yields
showsaretheinside or of
results quite close to simulated
calibration yield band,
and validation of theindicating
paddy ricegood
yield.
As results. The observed
illustrated, yield varies between
yields 26.5 and
are inside 30 ton/ha,
or quite close to with the highest
simulated yieldyield
band,found in the good
indicating year 2010.
results.
The RMSE for yield was 2.1 kgha 1 and 2.39 kgha1 in the calibration and validation period,
The yield varies between 26.5 and 30 ton/ha, with the highest yield found in the year 2010. The RMSE
forrespectively,
yield was 2.1which
kghashows
1 andpretty
2.39 kggood
haaccuracy of calibration.
1 in the calibration andAkhavan
validation et period,
al. [40] revealed the high
respectively, which
range of RMSE from 80 to 4220 kgha 1 for calibration and validation of wheat yield in Hamedan,
shows pretty good accuracy of calibration. Akhavan et al. [40] revealed the high range of RMSE from
Iran. They mentioned that the large RMSE could be due to the lack of data concerning management
80 to 4220 kgha1 for calibration and validation of wheat yield in Hamedan, Iran. They mentioned
practices, which can be accounted in our study area as well. The P-factor is quite good, with a value
that the large RMSE could be due to the lack of data concerning management practices, which can
larger than 0.8 for calibration and 0.89 for the validation period. The large R-factor (i.e., R-factor = 3)
be accounted in our study area as well. The P-factor is quite good, with a value larger than 0.8 for
represents a large uncertainty. The reason for this amount of uncertainty is probably due to low data
calibration and 0.89 for the validation period. The large R-factor (i.e., R-factor = 3) represents a large
availability and insufficient accounting for agriculture and industrial water use in the model. The
uncertainty. The reason for this amount of uncertainty is probably due to low data availability and
other reason is due to Nitrogen (N) stress, because the N is removed from the farmlands quickly by
insufficient accounting for agriculture
rising rainfall and surface runoff. and industrial water use in the model. The other reason is due
to Nitrogen (N) stress, because the N is removed from the farmlands quickly by rising rainfall and
surface runoff.
Hydrology 2017, 4, 16 9 of 17
Hydrology 2017, 4, 16 9 of 17

Hydrology 2017, 4, 16 9 of 17

FigureFigure 5. Calibration
5. Calibration (a)(a)
andand Validation(b)
Validation (b)of
of model
model for
forcrop
cropyield
yield(rice) based
(rice) on the
based on average of yield
the average of yield
in theinselected
the selected sub-basins.
sub-basins.
Figure 5. Calibration (a) and Validation (b) of model for crop yield (rice) based on the average of yield
3.3. Parameterization for ETa Based on MODIS ET Time Series
3.3. Parameterization
in the selectedfor ETa Based on MODIS ET Time Series
sub-basins.

3.3.1. Reliability of MODIS Data

3.3.1.3.3. Parameterization
Reliability of MODIS for ETa Based on MODIS ET Time Series
Data
To calibrate the model based on the evapotranspiration, first we evaluated the reliability of the
To calibrate
3.3.1.
MOD16 Reliability
of MODIStheofmodel MODIS
time based
Data
series onToward
data. the evapotranspiration,
this aim, the PET of first MOD16 we wasevaluated
extracted the reliability
monthly fromof the
MOD16Januaryof MODIS time
2006 to December series data. Toward this aim, the PET of MOD16 was extracted monthly
To calibrate the model 2013. based The average
on the PET-MODIS in
evapotranspiration, thewe
first basin was plotted
evaluated againstofPET
the reliability the
fromcalculated
January 2006 to December 2013. The averageusing PET-MODIS in the basinmethod was plotted against As PET
MOD16 ofby measuring
MODIS data in
time series the SWAT
data. Towardmodel this aim, thethe PET Penman-Monteith
of MOD16 was extracted (Figure
monthly6). from
calculated
January 2006 to December 2013. The average PET-MODIS in the basin was plotted against PET 6).
Figure by
6 measuring
shows, there is data
a high in the SWAT
correlation model
between using
PET of the
MOD16 Penman-Monteith
and PET calculated method
by SWAT. (Figure
The
dynamics
As Figure
calculated of
bytime
6 shows, seriesisofa
there
measuring SWAT
high
data and PET-MODIS
correlation
in the SWAT between
model was mapped
using PET in Figureand
of MOD16
the Penman-Monteith 7. The dynamics
PET
method of PET
calculated
(Figure byAs
6). ofSWAT.
SWAT
The dynamics and MODIS
of time
Figure 6 shows, are
series
there very similar
of SWAT
is a high to each other,
and PET-MODIS
correlation but
between PETwas there is a
mapped
of MOD16 bias between
andinPET Figurethese data. The
7. Thebydynamics
calculated amount
SWAT. The of PET
of
of SWAT PETand
dynamics in MODIS
winter,
of timewhen are very
series there is lessand
similar
of SWAT precipitation,
each other,is but
to PET-MODIS more
was reliable
there
mapped is ainthan
bias the other
7. Themonths.
between
Figure these Theofpeak
data.
dynamics The of
PETamount
of
PET-MODIS
SWAT and MODISin summer, May to August,
to each is higher than measured data (approximately The10 to 70
of PET in winter, whenare very
there issimilar
less precipitation, other, isbut
moretherereliable
is a biasthan between these data.
the other months. amount
The peak of
percent more
of PET ininwinter, than when measured
there one), which makes it unreliable in these months. Therefore, we
PET-MODIS summer, May to isAugust,
less precipitation,
is higher than is more reliable than
measured datathe other months. The
(approximately 10 topeak of
70 percent
calculated
PET-MODIS the inbias between
summer, May two to data time
August, series.
is higher Toward
than this
measured aim, we divided
data the
(approximatelyyear into
10 totwo70
moreperiods:
than measured one), which makes it second
unreliable in these to months. Therefore, we calculated the
percent first
morefrom thanOctober
measured to March
one), and
which makes from it April
unreliable September.
in these Thenmonths.we analyzed
Therefore,data we
bias between
based two data
on rational time series.
analysis andtwo Toward
found two this aim,for
constants wethesedividedtwo aim, the yearTointo
periods. twothe
correct periods: forfirst
bias,into the from
calculated the bias between data time series. Toward this we divided the year two
October
first to March
period, and second wastofrom Aprilbyto0.45,September. Thenperiod,we analyzed datawas based on rational
periods: firstthe PETOctober
from data multiplied
March and secondand fromforApril
second to September. the PETThendata multiplied
we analyzed data
analysis
based on rational analysis and found two constants for these two periods. To correct the bias, period,
by and
0.70. found
Then, the two constants
corrected PET for
of these
MODIS two
(PETm periods.
c) multiplied To correct
to the the
ratio bias,
of for
PET/ETa the
( first
) of for the the
MODIS
PET in
dataorder
first was to multiplied
period, biasthecorrection
PET data bywasof ETa.
0.45, and for second
multiplied by 0.45, andperiod, the PET
for second datathe
period, wasPET multiplied by 0.70. Then,
data was multiplied
the corrected PET of
by 0.70. Then, theMODIS (PETm
corrected PET of c )MODIS
multiplied
(PETmto cthe ratio of PET/ETa
) multiplied to the ratio() of MODIS
of PET/ETa ( )in
oforder
MODIS to bias
= (3)
correction of to
in order ETa.
bias correction of ETa.
ETPm
== (4) (3)
= ETam (3)
where PETm is the potential evapotranspiration of MODIS, ETam is the actual evapotranspiration
ETamc = ETPmc (4)
extracted from MODIS, ETamc is the bias corrected = of ETa-MODIS,
(4)
and PETmc is the bias corrected
PET-MODIS
where PETm
where PETm results.
is the potential
is the evapotranspiration
potential evapotranspiration of
of MODIS, ETamisisthe
MODIS,ETam the actual
actual evapotranspiration
evapotranspiration
extracted fromfrom
extracted MODIS,
MODIS,ETam c isc is
ETam the
thebias
biascorrected of ETa-MODIS,
corrected of ETa-MODIS,and
and PETm
PETm is the
c is cthe biasbias corrected
corrected
PET-MODIS
PET-MODISresults.
results.

Figure 6. Correlation between potential evapotranspiration (PET) of (MODIS products and SWAT.

Figure 6. Correlation between potential evapotranspiration (PET) of (MODIS products and SWAT.
Figure 6. Correlation between potential evapotranspiration (PET) of (MODIS products and SWAT.
Hydrology 2017, 4, 16 10 of 17
Hydrology 2017, 4, 16 10 of 17

Figure 7.7. Comparing

ComparingPETPETextracted from from
extracted MODIS-MOD16
MODIS-MOD16with one measured
with using theusing
one measured Penman-
the
Monthieh method. For bias correction, MODIS data were multiplied by 0.45 for the period of October
Penman-Monthieh method. For bias correction, MODIS data were multiplied by 0.45 for the period of
March and 0.70 for
OctoberMarch andAprilSeptember.
0.70 for AprilSeptember.

3.3.2. Procedure
3.3.2. ProcedureofofModel
ModelCalibration Using
Calibration ET-MODIS
Using ET-MODIS
In this
In this step,
step, the
theSWAT
SWATModel
Modelwas wascalibrated
calibratedinin
thethe
sub-basins with
sub-basins dominant
with dominant forest cover.
forest To
cover.
calibrate the SWAT model by ETa data, first we kept the calibrated parameters for river
To calibrate the SWAT model by ETa data, first we kept the calibrated parameters for river discharge discharge
and crop
and crop yield
yield and
and then
then we
we chose
chose the
the parameters
parameters that
that affected
affected ETa (Table 2).
ETa (Table 2). Five
Five parameters
parameters were
were
used for
used for sensitivity
sensitivity analysis
analysis using
using aa one-at-a-time
one-at-a-time method
method [33].
[33].

Table 2.
Table 2. Soil
Soiland
andWater
WaterAssessment
Assessment Tools
Tools (SWAT)
(SWAT) parameters
parameters andand
theirtheir initial
initial and final
and final rangerange for
for river
river discharge, evapotranpiration (ETa) and crop yield calibration.
discharge, evapotranpiration (ETa) and crop yield calibration.
Initial Additional
ID Parameters * Description Final Range Additional
ID Parameters * Description Range
Initial Range Final Range Information
Information
1 r__CN2.mgt Curve number 0.5 to 0.5 0.150 to 0.25
1 r__CN2.mgt Curve number 0.5 to 0.5 0.150 to 0.25
2 r__SOL_BD().sol Soil bulk density 0.5 to 0.5 0.11 to 0.72
0.5 to 0.5 0.11 to 0.72
32 r__SOL_BD().sol
r__SOL_K().sol Soil bulk density
Soil conductivity (mm/hr) 0.5 to 0.5 0.68 to 0.99
3 r__SOL_K().sol Soil conductivity
Soil available (mm/h)
water storage capacity 0.5 to 0.5 0.68 to 0.99
4 r__SOL_AWC().sol 0.5 to 0.5 0.07 to 0.50
4 r__SOL_AWC().sol
(mm H2O/mm soil)capacity
Soil available water storage
0.5 to 0.5 0.07 to 0.50
Effective(mm H2 O/mm
hydraulic soil)
conductivity in
5 v__CH_K2.rte 50 to 400 302 to 394
Effective hydraulic conductivity in
main channel
5 v__CH_K2.rte 50 to 400 302 to 394
Base flow main
alphachannel
factor for bank
66 v__ALPHA_BNK.rte
v__ALPHA_BNK.rte Base flow alphastorage
factor for bank storage 00to
to11 0.1 to
0.1 to0.7
0.7
Parameters
77 r__CH_N2.rte
r__CH_N2.rte Manning
Manningvalue
valuefor
for main channel
main channel 0.5toto0.5
0.5 0.5
0.39 to 0.20
0.39 to 0.20 Parameters
of riverof
8 r__OV_N.hru Manning value for overland channel 0.5 to 0.5 0.15 to 0.42 river discharge
8 r__OV_N.hru Manning value for overland channel 0.5 to 0.5 0.15 to 0.42 discharge
9 r__SLSUBBSN.hru Average slope length (m) 0.5 to 0.5 0.46 to 0.90
9 r__SLSUBBSN.hru Average slope length (m) 0.5 to 0.5 0.46 to 0.90
Threshold water level in shallow aquifer for
10 v__GWQMN.gw Threshold water level in shallow 100 to 5000 1250 to 3600
10 v__GWQMN.gw base flow 100 to 5000 1250 to 3600
aquifer for base flow
11 v__GW_DELAY.gw Ground water delay time (days) 10 to 500 227 to 400
11 v__GW_DELAY.gw Ground water delay time (days) 10 to 500 227 to 400
12 v__ALPHA_BF.gw Base flow alpha factor (days) 0.04 to 0.07 0.040 to 0.075
12 v__ALPHA_BF.gw Base flow alpha factor (days) 0.04 to 0.07 0.040 to 0.075
13 v__GW_REVAP.gw Revap coefficient 0.02 to 0.2 0.0.03 to 0.15
13 v__GW_REVAP.gw Revap coefficient 0.02 to 0.2 0.0.03 to 0.15
14 v__REVAPMN.gw Threshold
Threshold water level
water in shallow
level aquifer
in shallow 0 to 500 100 to 250
14 v__REVAPMN.gw 0 to 500 100 to 250
15 v__ESCO.hru Soil evaporation compensation factor
aquifer 0.1 to 1.0 0.40 to 0.65
Rate of decline in radiation use efficiency per
15
16 v__ESCO.hru
v__WAVP{8}.plant.dat Soil evaporation compensation factor
unit increase in vapor pressure deficit.
0.11 to 50
1.0 0.40 to46
43 to 0.65

V__DLAI{8}.plant.dat Rate of
Fraction of growing
decline season
in radiation use area
when leaf
17 0.15 to 1 0.95 to 0.99
16 _____FRST
v__WAVP{8}.plant.dat beginsper
efficiency to decline in forestin
unit increase area
vapor 1 to 50 43 to 46 Parameters
V__BLAI{8}.plant.dat pressure
Maximum deficit.
potential leaf area index of ETa
18 2 to 10 2.7 to 5.7
_____FRST of forest areas
V__DLAI{8}.plant.dat_ Fraction of growing season when leaf
17 v__HEAT_UNITS{[],1}. Total heat units for plant to reach maturity 0.15 to 1 0.95 to 0.99 Parameters
19 ____FRST area begins into forest
decline in forest area 1000 to 4500 2900 to 3350
mgt____FRST areas of ETa
V__BLAI{8}.plant.dat__
v__HEAT_UNITS{[],1}. Maximum potential
Total heat units leaf
for plant to area
reachindex of
maturity
20
18 1000
2 toto10
4500 4000
2.7 to
to4600
5.7
mgt____RICE
___FRST in paddy
forest areas
areas Parameters
21 v__HI{[],1}.mgt
v__HEAT_UNITS{[],1}. harvest
Total heat units forindex
plant to reach 0.6 to 0.99 0.9 to 0.99 of crop
19 1000 to 4500 2900 to 3350
22 mgt____FRST
v__BIO-TARG.mgt maturitybiointarget
forest areas 10 to 50 35 to 50
v__HEAT_UNITS{[],1}. Total heat units for plant to reach
20 * r parameter value is multiplied by 1 + given value, v parameter value is 1000
replaced by a value
to 4500 4000from the given range.
to 4600
mgt____RICE maturity in paddy areas Parameters
21 v__HI{[],1}.mgt harvest index 0.6 to 0.99 0.9 to 0.99 of crop
22 v__BIO-TARG.mgt bio target 10 to 50 35 to 50
Hydrology 2017, 4, 16 11 of 17
Hydrology 2017, 4, 16 11 of 17

* r parameter value is multiplied by 1 + given value, v parameter value is replaced by a value from
the given
The range.
results of the global sensitivity analysis are shown by p-value and t-test, which show the
measureTheof sensitivity
results of theand the sensitivity
global significance of sensitivity,
analysis are shown respectively.
by p-valueThe andresults
t-test, show
whichthatshow BLAI
the
(t-test
measure= [2.5], p-value =and
of sensitivity 0.05)
theissignificance
the most sensitive parameter
of sensitivity, for ET calibration
respectively. The resultsfollowed
show thatbyBLAI DLAI (t-
(t-test = [1.5], p-value = 0.3) and ESCO (t-test = [0.6], p-value = 0.5). BLAI represent
test = [2.5], p-value = 0.05) is the most sensitive parameter for ET calibration followed by DLAI (t-test the maximum
potential leaf area
= [1.5], p-value index
= 0.3) and of
ESCOtrees. BLAI
(t-test is one
= [0.6], of the=six
p-value parameters
0.5). used the
BLAI represent to determine
maximum leaf area
potential
development
leaf area indexofofplants during
trees. BLAI is the
one growing
of the six season.
parameters DLAI
used is to
thedetermine
fractionleaf
of the
areagrowing
development season of
when the leaf area begins to decline [41]. ESCO depends on soil characteristics
plants during the growing season. DLAI is the fraction of the growing season when the leaf area and controls the
soil evaporation.
begins to decline [41]. ESCO depends on soil characteristics and controls the soil evaporation.
The
The results
results of of the
the model
model calibration
calibration werewere satisfactory.
satisfactory. Figure
Figure 8a 8a shows
shows thethe results
results of of the
the ETa
ETa
calibration
calibration in the forest areaof watershed. As Figure 8 depicts, the observed data are capturedby
in the forest areaof watershed. As Figure 8 depicts, the observed data are captured bythe
the
predicted
predictedband band(95PPU).
(95PPU). InIn
allall
of of
thethe
sub-basins,
sub-basins, thethe
temporal
temporalchanges of ETa
changes of were simulated
ETa were quite quite
simulated well,
with
well,awith
Nash-Sutcliffe (NS) and
a Nash-Sutcliffe (NS)coefficient of determination
and coefficient of determination(R2 ) higher than than
(R2) higher 0.79. 0.79.
Moriasi et al. et
Moriasi [42]
al.
and Santhi et al. [43] reported that if the NS and R 2 are greater than 0.5, then the performance of the
[42] and Santhi et al. [43] reported that if the NS and R2 are greater than 0.5, then the performance of
model is satisfactory.
the model The results
is satisfactory. also show
The results also that
show thethat
simulated ETa hasETa
the simulated variation in different
has variation seasons.
in different
Petkovic et al. [44] mentioned that relative humidity and a wind speed
seasons. Petkovi et al. [44] mentioned that relative humidity and a wind speed of two meters of two meters are two factors
are
that
twoplay a role
factors thatinplay
the variation
a role in oftheET. The same
variation of results
ET. The were
same also presented
results wereby Nguyen
also presentedand Kappas
by Nguyen [3].
As
andFigure
Kappas 8a,b[3].
shows, the lowest
As Figure evapotranspiration
8a,b shows, is from Novemberistofrom
the lowest evapotranspiration February, when to
November theFebruary,
average
temperatures are lower than over the other months.
when the average temperatures are lower than over the other months.

Figure 8. Results of calibration (a) and validation (b) of ETa using MODIS data.
Figure 8. Results of calibration (a) and validation (b) of ETa using MODIS data.

3.4. Quantification of Water Components

3.4. Quantification of Water Components
After the model was calibrated by river discharge, crop yield and ET, we computed the water
After the model was calibrated by river discharge, crop yield and ET, we computed the water
resource availability in the watershed. Figure 9 shows the water resources availability including the
resource availability in the watershed. Figure 9 shows the water resources availability including the
monthly (for the time period 2006 to 2013) water yield (i.e., the net amount of water that leaves the
monthly (for the time period 2006 to 2013) water yield (i.e., the net amount of water that leaves the
sub-basin and contributes to streamflow in the reach during the time period), green water resources
sub-basin and contributes to streamflow in the reach during the time period), green water resources
(i.e., soil water content) and green water flow (i.e., actual evapotranspiration) in the A-Luoi
(i.e., soil water content) and green water flow (i.e., actual evapotranspiration) in the A-Luoi watershed
watershed of Vietnam.
of Vietnam.
Hydrology 2017, 4, 16 12 of 17
Hydrology 2017, 4, 16 12 of 17

FigureFigure 9. Spatial
9. Spatial pattern
pattern of hydrologicalcomponents
of hydrological components in A-Luoi
A-Luoi area:
area:(a)(a)the distribution
the of average
distribution of average
annualannual (20052013)
(20052013) actualactual evapotranpiration
evapotranpiration (ETa);
(ETa); (b) water
(b) soil soil water content
content (SW);(SW); (c) water
(c) water yield yield
(WYLD);
(WYLD);
and (d) surfaceand (d) surface
runoff (SURQ).runoff (SURQ).

There is a significant spatial variation in the hydrological components across the watershed. The
There is a significant
distributed maps showed spatial
that invariation
the north ofinbasin,
the hydrological components
where the rainfall across
and water yield arethe watershed.
small, and
The distributed maps showed(ETa)
actual evapotranspiration that in the north
is high. The ETaof basin,
showswhere the rainfall
the amount of waterand water
that yield areby
is consumed small,
plants. The annual average ETa (M95PPU) during the period of 2006 to 2013 varied
and actual evapotranspiration (ETa) is high. The ETa shows the amount of water that is consumed by from 719 mm/year
plants.toThe
838 annual
mm/year in different
average parts of theduring
ETa (M95PPU) watershed. The lowest
the period of 2006amount
to 2013 ofvaried
ETa was found
from 719 in the
mm/year
southern area, while the northern area had the highest ETa (Figure 9a). The
to 838 mm/year in different parts of the watershed. The lowest amount of ETa was found in the soil water content map
(Figure 9b) shows the area where rain-fed Rubber and other perennial crops have a better chance of
southern area, while the northern area had the highest ETa (Figure 9a). The soil water content map
high production due to soil moisture. The southern area has the highest soil moisture, while the
(Figure 9b) shows the area where rain-fed Rubber and other perennial crops have a better chance
eastern area has the lowest soil moisture. This is probably due to soil characteristics in different parts
of high production due to soil moisture. The southern area has the highest soil moisture, while the
of the watershed. Water yields (Figure 9c) varied from 1679 mm/year to 2222 mm/year in different
eastern area hasfrom
sub-basins the lowest
2006 tosoil
2013.moisture.
Water yieldThis
is is
theprobably
net amountdueoftowater
soil characteristics in different
that leaves the sub-basin andparts
of thecontributes
watershed. Water yields (Figure 9c) varied from
to streamflow in the reach during the time period. 1679 mm/year to 2222 mm/year in different
sub-basinsThe from 2006average
annual to 2013. Waterfrom
rainfall yield is the
2006 net was
to 2013 amount
4049 of water that
mm/year. leaves thethe
We calculated sub-basin
monthly and
averagetowater
contributes components
streamflow in theinreach
the entire basin.
during the The
timeresults of average monthly evapotranspiration
period.
showed
The thataverage
annual ETa is highest
rainfallin from
May, due
2006totothe highwas
2013 demand
4049 of water by forests
mm/year. and plants
We calculated theinmonthly
this
average water components in the entire basin. The results of average monthly evapotranspiration
showed that ETa is highest in May, due to the high demand of water by forests and plants in this
month. The prediction uncertainty in summer is higher than in winter due to the high consumption
Hydrology2017,
Hydrology 2017,4,4,16
16 13of
13 of17
17

month. The prediction uncertainty in summer is higher than in winter due to the high consumption
of
of water
water byby plants
plants during
during these
these months
months (Figure
(Figure 10a). Paddy rice
10a). Paddy rice lands
lands affect
affect the
the ETa
ETa considerably.
considerably.
The total ratio of ETa to rainfall for eight years (20062013) was calculated at 36%, showing
The total ratio of ETa to rainfall for eight years (20062013) was calculated at 36%, showing that that
the ETa
the
is always less than rainfall in tropical areas. Nevertheless, this ratio is lowest in October and
ETa is always less than rainfall in tropical areas. Nevertheless, this ratio is lowest in October and highest
in January.
highest in January.

Figure 10. Average monthly (a) evapotranspiration and (b) surface runoff against rainfall. The gray
Figure 10. Average monthly (a) evapotranspiration and (b) surface runoff against rainfall. The gray
bands show95%
bands show 95% prediction
prediction uncertainty
uncertainty (95PPU)
(95PPU) and and thestars
the red red show
stars the
show the median
median of iteration
of iteration (during
(during 20062013).
20062013).

3.5. Surface Runoff

3.5. Surface Runoff
The result of the SWAT hydrological model shows that the surface runoff is high in upstream
The result of the SWAT hydrological model shows that the surface runoff is high in upstream
areas of basins. Vegetation cover, soil type and slope gradient [45] are the important factors affecting
areas of basins. Vegetation cover, soil type and slope gradient [45] are the important factors affecting
surface runoff. Land use change and deforestation lead to increasing surface runoff and hence soil
surface runoff. Land use change and deforestation lead to increasing surface runoff and hence soil
erosion. The results showed that the spatial average of surface runoff in the watershed varied from
erosion. The results showed that the spatial average of surface runoff in the watershed varied from
915 mm/year to 1072 mm/year from 2006 to 2013. The area upstream has the highest amount of
915 mm/year to 1072 mm/year from 2006 to 2013. The area upstream has the highest amount of
surface runoff probably due to its high slope.
surface runoff probably due to its high slope.
The monthly average 95PPU of surface runoff was extracted in order to understand the temporal
The monthly average 95PPU of surface runoff was extracted in order to understand the temporal
distribution and uncertainty of surface runoff (Figure 10b). This figure reveals that October has the
distribution and uncertainty of surface runoff (Figure 10b). This figure reveals that October has
highest surface runoff, with an average of approximately 368 mm/month. The surface runoff during
the highest surface runoff, with an average of approximately 368 mm/month. The surface runoff
September to November has the highest uncertainty, probably due to a conceptual model and
during September to November has the highest uncertainty, probably due to a conceptual model and
parameter uncertainties. However, all uncertainties are depicted in the 95PPU band, shown in gray
parameter uncertainties. However, all uncertainties are depicted in the 95PPU band, shown in gray in
in the figure. As the Figure 10b shows, there is a strong relationship between surface runoff and
the figure. As the Figure 10b shows, there is a strong relationship between surface runoff and rainfall.
rainfall. In February, the rainfall is the lowest and the uncertainty surface runoff prediction is also
In February, the rainfall is the lowest and the uncertainty surface runoff prediction is also low, while in
low, while in October, the month with the highest rainfall, the uncertainty is high. Surface runoff
October, the month with the highest rainfall, the uncertainty is high. Surface runoff mainly occurred
mainly occurred in areas with a slope higher than 25%. This slope class includes the farmlands, which
in areas with a slope higher than 25%. This slope class includes the farmlands, which have a surface
have a surface runoff larger than forest land use. Nevertheless, the surface runoff in the paddy rice
runoff larger than forest land use. Nevertheless, the surface runoff in the paddy rice lands is low
lands is low because the slopes in this area usually break down by terracing, therefore, the time
because the slopes in this area usually break down by terracing, therefore, the time concentration is
concentration is increased. The soil erosion and sedimentation followed the surface runoff behavior
increased. The soil erosion and sedimentation followed the surface runoff behavior [5]. Therefore,
[5]. Therefore, with an increase in surface runoff, the soil erosion and hence sedimentation is
with an increase in surface runoff, the soil erosion and hence sedimentation is increased. The same
increased. The same results were presented by Phuong et al. [5]. The results revealed that surface
runoff is highest when the amount of rainfall reaches the maximum amount during the year.
Hydrology 2017, 4, 16 14 of 17

results were presented by Phuong et al. [5]. The results revealed that surface runoff is highest when
the amount of rainfall reaches the maximum amount during the year.

3.6. Best Management Practices (BMPs)

BMPs are conservation programs that minimize pasture and agricultural runoff and nutrient
loads. Many researchers use BMPs to conserve agricultural and pastoral lands. For example, the effects
of two BMP systems on water quality in a livestock pasture were discussed by Sheshukov et al. [46].
Smith et al. [47] presented BMPs to conserve agricultural lands. Arabi et al. [48] used four BMPs types
in different land use classes in order to reduce sediment and nutrients loads in the watershed.
The southern part of the A-Luoi basin has the highest runoff and hence flooding, which
probably resulted in soil erosion and sedimentation in this area. We installed two types of BMPs
structuresterracing and contouringin agricultural lands with slope higher than 25% in early
2005. A terrace was designed in the field to decrease runoff and protect the land against erosion.
It is constructed across a slope on a contour. Terracing in the SWAT model is simulated by adjusting
runoff and erosion parameters such as the USLE practice factor, the slope length and curve number.
A contouring system simulates a contour to the HRU on a specified day. Contour planting is the method
of planting crops in straight rows in small ridges. It results in increased roughness and soil storage.
Similar to terracing, contouring is simulated by adjusting the USLE practice factor and curve number.
All parameters were adjusted based on the land slope suggested by SWAT documents and literature [5].
The results revealed that terracing in dry agricultural lands resulted in a reducing surface
runoff and sediment yield of approximately 33% and 58%, respectively, whereas increasing ETa
only increased approximately 35%. The amount of soil water content also increased 136% from 2006 to
2013. Nevertheless, implementing contouring has more significant impact than terracing in farmlands
with a slope of more than 25% (Table 3). The BMPs reduce surface runoff and sedimentation, whereas
percolation, soil moisture and ETa decrease. Labrire et al. [7] mentioned that land use with good
management practices protect lands against soil erosion. They concluded that implementations such
as contour planting, no-till farming and a vegetative buffer strip can decrease soil erosion by up to 99%.

Table 3. The average water components (20062013) in Hydrological Response Units (HRUs) in dry
farmlands with slope larger than 25%.

Surface Percolation Soil Water

BMP ETa (mm)
Runoff (mm) (mm) Content (mm)
No application 150 1.5 11 28
Terracing 100.5 24 26 38
Contouring 75 41 37 44

4. Conclusions
A hydrological model based on SWAT was implemented in the A-Luoi district in the Central
Vietnam in order to assess water and land resource management. A multi-calibration procedure that
takes into account not only the stream flow but also the actual evapotranspiration and crop yield was
investigated. We used the regionalization approach in the ungauged basin of A-Luoi to transfer the
parameters from the nearby calibrated watershed in our model. The model was well calibrated based
on various observed data (e.g., river discharge, actual evapotranspiration and crop yield). The results
showed that BMPs implementation in farmlands could help to reduce the surface runoff and hence
soil erosion and sedimentation.
One of the difficulties to calibrate the model is that some of the parameters might be sensitive
to more than one objective, we overcome this problem by choosing the best range of the parameters
value instead of an absolute value in each step of the calibration.
Hydrology 2017, 4, 16 15 of 17

Our results showed that the ETa product of MODIS can be used for the calibration of the
hydrological model in case of data scarcity. However, it is important to note that bias correction
should apply to this product before using it in the calibration process.
Based on the results, surface runoff was high, probably due to the geometry of the basin and its soil
properties. The surface runoff is high, which leads to rising soil erosion and sedimentation. Our results
show that using BMPs leads to decreased surface runoff and hence soil erosion in agricultural lands.
Therefore, we suggest implementing terracing/contouring systems in the steep farmlands of the
A-Luoi area.

Acknowledgments: The authors wish to thank DAAD (Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst) for their support
to the Fachbezogene Partnerschaften mit Hochschulen in Entwicklungslndern project (Project ID.: 57061865).
Author Contributions: Ammar Rafiei Emam and Martin Kappas conducted this research, Nguyen Hoang Khanh Linh
contributed to data collection and data analysis, Tsolmon Renchin contributed to data analysis. All authors have
read and corrected the paper.
Conflicts of Interest: The author declares no conflict of interest.

References
1. Arnold, J.G.; Srinivasan, R.; Muttiah, R.S.; Williams, J.R. Large area hydrologic modeling and
assessmentPart 1, model development. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 1998, 34, 7389. [CrossRef]
2. Rafiei Emam, A.; Kappas, M.; Abbaspour, K.C. Simulation of water balance components in a watershed located
in central drainage basin of Iran. In Remote Sensing of the Terrestrial Water Cycle, Geophysical Monograph 206;
Lakshmi, V., Ed.; American Geophysical Union: Washington, DC, USA; Wiley & Sons Press: New York, NY,
USA, 2015; pp. 463478.
3. Nguyen, H.Q.; Kappas, M. Modeling Surface Runoff and Evapotranspiration using SWAT and BEACH for
a Tropical Watershed in North Vietnam, Compared to MODIS Products. Int. J. Adv. Remote Sens. GIS 2015, 4,
13671384.
4. Schuol, J.; Abbaspour, K.C.; Yang, H.; Srinivasan, R.; Zehnder, A.J.B. Modeling blue and green water
availability in Africa. Water Resour. Res. 2008, 44, 118. [CrossRef]
5. Phuong, T.T.; Thong, C.V.T.; Ngoc, N.B.; Chuong, H.V. Modeling Soil Erosion within Small Moutainous
Watershed in Central Vietnam Using GIS and SWAT. Resour. Environ. 2014, 4, 139147.
6. Qiao, L.; Herrmann, R.B.; Pan, Z. Parameter Uncertainty Reduction for SWAT Using Grace, Streamflow,
and Groundwater Table Data for Lower Missouri River Basin. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 2013, 49, 343358.
[CrossRef]
7. Labrire, N.; Locatelli, B.; Laumonier, Y.; Freycon, V.; Bernoux, M. Soil erosion in the humid tropics:
A systematic quantitative review. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2015, 203, 127139. [CrossRef]
8. Cerd, A. Effect of climate on surface flow along a climatological gradient. A field rainfall simulation approach.
J. Arid Environ. 1998, 38, 145159. [CrossRef]
9. Xu, X.Y.; Yang, H.B.; Yang, D.W.; Ma, H. Assessing the impact of climate variability and human activities on
annual runoff in the Luan River basin, China. Hydrol. Res. 2013, 44, 940952. [CrossRef]
10. Nguyen, A.H. Comprehensively Studying Geographical Arising and Land Degradation Aiming the Purpose
of Reasonably Using Land Resource and Preventing Disaster in Binh-Tri-Thien Region. Ph.D. Thesis,
University of Mining and Geology, Hanoi, Vietnam, 2010.
11. Phuong, T.T.; Chuong, H.V. Simulating effects of land use change on soil erosion in Bo River basin in the
Central of Vietnam. J. Agric. Rural Dev. 2013, 2.
12. Soil Survey Staff. Keys to Soil Taxonomy, 12th ed.; USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service: Washington,
DC, USA, 2014.
13. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). The Digital Soil Map of the World and Derived
Soil Properties, Version 3.6; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2003.
14. Master Plan of Aluoi 2015, District, Development, and Investment Plan (DDIP); Aluoi district Authority:
Aluoi, Vietnam.
Hydrology 2017, 4, 16 16 of 17

15. Rafiei Emam, A.; Kappas, M.; Akhavan, S.; Hosseini, S.Z.; Abbaspour, K.C. Estimation of groundwater
recharge and its relation to land degradation: Case study of a semi-arid river basin in Iran. Environ. Earth
Sci. J. 2015, 74, 67916803. [CrossRef]
16. USDA: United States Department of Agriculture. Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds, Technical Release 55
(TR-55), 2nd ed.; Natural Resources Conservation Service, Conservation Engineering Division: Washington,
DC, USA, 1986.
17. Ritchie, J.T. A model for predicting evaporation from a row crop with incomplete cover. Water Resour. Res.
1972, 8, 12041213. [CrossRef]
18. Williams, J.R. Sediment Yield Prediction with Universal Equation Using Runoff Energy Factor; Agricultural
Research Service: Washington, DC, USA, 1975; Volume ARS-S-40.
19. Wischmeier, W.H.; Smith, D.D. Predicting Rainfall-Erosion Losses from Cropland East of the Rocky Mountains.
Agriculture Handbook; U.S. Department Agriculture: Washington, DC, USA, 1965; p. 282.
20. Arnold, J.G.; Allen, P.M. Automated methods for estimating base flow and ground water recharge from
streamflow records. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 1999, 35, 411424. [CrossRef]
21. Stewart, M.; Cimino, J.; Ross, M. Calibration of Base Flow Separation Methods with Streamflow Conductivity.
Ground Water 2007, 45, 1727. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
22. Meaurio, M.; Zabaleta, A.; Uriarte, J.A.; Srinivasan, R.; Antigedad, I. Evaluation of SWAT models
performance to simulate streamflow spatial origin. The case of a small forested watershed. J. Hydrol. 2015,
525, 326334. [CrossRef]
23. Arnold, J.G.; Allen, P.M. Estimating hydrologic budgets for three Illinois watersheds. J. Hydrol. 1996, 176,
5777. [CrossRef]
24. Vandewiele, G.L.; Atlabachew, E. Monthly water balance of ungauged catchments obtained by geographical
regionalization. J. Hydrol. 1995, 170, 277291. [CrossRef]
25. Brdossy, A. Calibration of hydrological model parameters for ungauged catchments. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.
2007, 11, 703710. [CrossRef]
26. Samaniego, L.; Brdossy, A. Robust parametric models of runoff characteristics at the mesoscale. J. Hydrol.
2005, 303, 136151. [CrossRef]
27. Bastola, S.; Ishidaira, H.; Takeuchi, K. Regionalization of hydrological model parameters under parameter
uncertainty: A case study involving TOPMODEL and basins across the globe. J. Hydrol. 2008, 357, 188206.
[CrossRef]
28. Merz, R.; Blschla, G. Regionalisation of catchment model parameters. J. Hydrol. 2004, 287, 95123. [CrossRef]
29. McIntyre, N.; Lee, H.; Wheater, H.; Young, A.; Wagener, T. Ensemble predictions of runoff in ungauged catchments.
Water Resour. Res. 2005, 41, W12434. [CrossRef]
30. Parajka, J.; Merz, R.; Bloschl, G. A comparison of regionalization methods for catchment model parameters.
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2005, 9, 157171. [CrossRef]
31. Sun, W.C.; Ishidaira, H.; Bastola, S. Calibration of hydrological models in ungauged basins based on satellite
radar altimetry observations of river water level. Hydrol. Process. 2014, 26, 35243537. [CrossRef]
32. Sun, W.C.; Ishidaira, H.; Bastola, S. Towards improving river discharge estimation in ungauged basins:
calibration of rainfall-runoff models based on satellite observations of river flow width at basin outlet.
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2010, 14, 20112022. [CrossRef]
33. Abbaspour, K.C. SWAT-CUP: SWAT Calibration and Uncertainty ProgramsA User Manual; Swiss Federal
Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology: Dubendorf, Switzerland, 2015.
34. Rafiei Emam, A.; Kappas, M.; Hosseini, S.Z. Assessing the impact of climate change on water resources, crop
production and land degradation in a semi-arid river basin. Hydrol. Res. 2015, 46, 854870.
35. Immerzeel, W.W.; Droogers, P. Calibration of a distributed hydrological model based on satellite
evapotranspiration. J. Hydrol. 2008, 349, 411424. [CrossRef]
36. Cheema, M.J.M.; Immerzeel, W.W.; Bastiaanssen, W. Spatial quantification of groundwater abstraction in the
irrigated Indus basin. Groundwater 2014, 52, 2536. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
37. Mu, Q.; Zhao, M.; Running, S.W. Improvements to a MODIS Global Terrestrial Evapotranspiration Algorithm.
Remote Sens. Environ. 2011, 115, 17811800. [CrossRef]
38. Rafiei Emam, A.; Mishra, B.; Kumar, P.; Masago, Y.; Fukushi, K. Impact Assessment of Climate and Land-Use
Changes on Flooding Behaviour in the Upper Ciliwung River, Jakarta, Indonesia. Water 2016, 8, 559.
[CrossRef]
Hydrology 2017, 4, 16 17 of 17

39. Luo, Y.; Arnold, J.; Allen, P.; Chen, X. Base flow simulation using SWAT model in an inland river basin in
Tianshan Mountains, Northwest China. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2012, 16, 12591267. [CrossRef]
40. Akhavan, S.; Abedi-Koupai, J.; Mousavi, S.F.; Afyuni, M.; Eslamian, S.S.; Abbaspour, K.C. Application of
SWAT model to investigate nitrate leaching in HamadanBahar Watershed, Iran. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. J.
2010, 139, 675688. [CrossRef]
41. Arnold, J.G.; Kiniry, J.R.; Srinivasan, R.; Williams, J.R.; Naney, E.B.; Neitsch, S.L. Soil and Water Assessment Tool.
Input/Output Documentation, Version 2012, TWRI TR-439; Texas Water Resources Institute: College Station,
TX, USA, 2012.
42. Moriasi, D.N.; Arnold, J.G.; Van Liew, M.W.; Bringer, R.L.; Harmel, R.D.; Veith, T.L. Model evaluation
guidelines for systematic quantification of accuracy in watershed simulations. Am. Soc. Agric. Biol. Eng.
2007, 50, 885900.
43. Santhi, C.; Arnold, J.G.; Williams, J.R.; Dugas, W.A.; Srinivasan, R.; Hauck, L.M. Validation of the SWAT
model on a large river basin with point and nonpoint sources. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 2001, 37, 11691188.
[CrossRef]
44. Petkovic, D.; Gocic, M.; Trajkovic, S.; Shamshirband, S.; Motamedi, S.; Hashim, R.; Bonakdari, H.
Determination of the Most Influential Weather Parameters on Reference Evapotranspiration by Adaptive
Neuro-Fuzzy Methodology. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2015, 114, 277284. [CrossRef]
45. El Kateb, H.; Zhang, H.; Zhang, P.; Mosandl, R. Soil erosion and surface runoff on different vegetation covers
and slope gradients: A field experiment in Southern Shaanxi Province, China. CATENA 2013, 105, 110.
[CrossRef]
46. Sheshukov, A.Y.; Douglas-Mankin, K.R.; Sinnathamby, S.; Daggupati, P. Pasture BMP effectiveness using an
HRU-based subarea approach in SWAT. J. Environ. Manag. 2016, 166, 276284. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
47. Smith, C.M.; Nejadhashemi, A.P.; Leatherman, J.C. Using a BMP Auction as a Tool for the Implementation of
Conservation Practices. J. Extens. 2009, 47, 110.
48. Arabi, M.; Govindaraju, R.S.; Hantush, M.M.; Engel, B.A. Role of watershed subdivision on modeling
the effectiveness of best management practice with SWAT. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 2006, 42, 513528.
[CrossRef]

2017 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).