Ang 2018

+Model
WSJ-62; No. of Pages 13 ARTICLE IN PRESS

Water Science
ScienceDirect
Water Science xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/wsj
Research Article
Simulating streamflow in an ungauged catchment of Tonlesap Lake

Basin in Cambodia using Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT)
model
Raksmey Ang, Chantha Oeurng ∗

Faculty of Hydrology and Water Resources Engineering, Institute of Technology of Cambodia, Cambodia
Received 29 December 2016; received in revised form 24 December 2017; accepted 24 December 2017
Abstract
The study objective of this work is to test the applicability of the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) model to simulate the
streamflow through calibration and validation for both daily and monthly basis in the Stung Pursat River catchment, an ungauged
sub-catchment of Tonle Sap Basin in Cambodia. In order to achieve the objective of the study, SWAT model was set up with study
period of 10 years (2001–2010). Additionally, ArcSWAT2012 and ArcGIS10.2.2 combined with Sequential Uncertainty Fitting-2
(SUFI-2) algorithms were used to conduct uncertainty analysis, calibration and validation of the SWAT model using daily observed
streamflow data at the catchment outlet. Daily simulation produced the results with Nash-Sutcliffe Simulation Efficiency (NSE) of
0.38, Percent Bias (PBIAS) of +5.1% and Root Mean square error-observation standard deviation Ratio (RSR) of 0.79 in calibration
period, and with NSE of −6.61, PBIAS of −78.38% and RSR of 2.67 in validation period. The streamflow results of monthly time
series were improved and acceptable with NSE of 0.60 while decrease the value of PBIAS and RSR to 1.14, and 0.63 respectively.
The SWAT model should be used to simulate monthly streamflow in such an ungauged catchment like the Stung Pursat catchment
due to data scarcity and uncertainty.
© 2018 National Water Research Center. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC
BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Keywords: Streamflow; Ungauged catchment; SWAT model; Tonlesap Lake basin; Cambodia
1. Introduction
Cambodia’s economic growth largely depends on agriculture which is one of the largest sector in country constituting
33.5% of national gross domestic product (GDP) and also employed 56% of the labor force (Kimsun et al., 2011).
However, this sector consumes large amounts of fresh water and often creates water scarcity. Hence, water is the
most essential natural resources for sustainable development and poverty reduction in Cambodia. In reality, many
communities, including the study site of Stung Pursat River Basin, face problems brought on by too much or too little
∗ Corresponding author at: Faculty of Hydrology and Water Resources Engineering Institute of Technology of Cambodia, Russian Federation
Blvd, PO. Box 86, PhnomPenh, Cambodia.
E-mail address: chantha@itc.edu.kh (C. Oeurng).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wsj.2017.12.002
1110-4929/© 2018 National Water Research Center. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Please cite this article in press as: Ang, R., Oeurng, C., Simulating streamflow in an ungauged catchment of Tonlesap Lake Basin in
Cambodia using Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) model. Water Sci. (2017), https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wsj.2017.12.002
+Model
2 R. Ang, C. Oeurng / Water Science xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
water. This situation is compounded by the effects of catchment degradation caused by physical alteration of inland water
systems (both quantity and quality), deforestation and habitat destruction, water withdrawal for agriculture, mining
and urbanization, pollution, and hydrological and environmental changes due to infrastructure developments within
and outside of Cambodia (MOE, 2013). Thus, the study of streamflow or water resources availability in a catchment
using scientific methods and approaches can help identify environmental problems in terms of land use changes, soil
degradation and climate changes. Hydrological models are frequently applied for the estimation of reliable quantity
of streamflow and the associated sediment transportation from upland areas into downstream watercourses, lakes and
reservoirs (Hassen et al., 2016). Nowadays, there are many hydrological models to help calculate the water discharge
more accurately, easily and quickly than the traditional measurement method. One of them is SWAT (Soil and Water
Assessment Tool) model which is a basin-scale model integrated with ArcGIS to help improve the accuracy of simulated
result of streamflow from rainfall and physical properties of the basin. The SWAT model has good reputation for best
use in agricultural watersheds and its uses have been successfully calibrated and validated in many areas around
the world. Additionally, SWAT has gained international acceptance as a robust interdisciplinary watershed modeling
tool as evidenced by international SWAT conferences, hundreds of SWAT-related papers presented at numerous other
scientific meetings, and large number of articles published in many journals (Gassman et al., 2007). The SWAT model
has been applied to watershed-scale projects in different parts of the world such as the United States, the European
Union (Barlund et al., 2007), China (Hao et al., 2004), India (Kaur et al., 2004), Australia (Sun and Cornish, 2006)
and Africa (Schuol and Abbaspour, 2006). Results show that SWAT is capable of simulating streamflow and sediment
loads of a river basin with satisfactory accuracies. In addition, the SWAT model has been successfully applied to
simulate the streamflow in the Mekong River Basin which is one of the largest drainage areas in the region (Rossi
et al., 2009). The statistical evaluation results for the Mekong River model calibration and validation showed that the
Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE) monthly and daily values generally range between 0.8 and 1.0 for all of the monitoring
stations. This result demonstrates that the model can potentially be used as an effective water quantity tool within this
extremely large basin. Furthermore, the SWAT model has been applied to predict streamflow in other regions in the
world. Hassen et al. (2016) used SWAT model to predict streamflow in tropical Maybar watershed. The results showed
that SWAT model captured the amount and variability of monthly streamflow hydrograph time series very well both in
calibration and validation periods. John et al. (2011) made a preliminary assessment of the performance of a complex
watershed model (SWAT model) in predicting stream flow on the Naro Moru river catchment in Ewaso Ngiro river
basin, Kenya. The application of most hydrological models often requires a large amount of spatially variable input
data and a large number of parameters. Due to the lack of high-quality input data and conceptual simplification of
environmental processes, these models need to be calibrated, by varying degrees, to the observed hydrologic variables
(Beven, 2006; Gupta et al., 2008; Srinivasan et al., 2010; Wagener et al., 2004). Since one technique cannot be
applied to all situations and different projects, many procedures have become available to perform calibration and
uncertainty analyses. Abbaspour et al. (2007) have linked three programs to the hydrologic simulator SWAT (Arnold
et al., 1998) under the same platform, SWAT-CUP (SWAT Calibration Uncertainty Procedures). These procedures
include: Generalized Likelihood Uncertainty Equation (GLUE) (Beven and Binley, 1992), ParaSol (Van Griensven
and Meixner, 2006), and Sequential Uncertainty Fitting Ver.2 (SUFI-2) (Abbaspour et al., 2007). To successfully apply
hydrological models in practical water resources investigations, careful prediction uncertainty analysis and calibration
are required (Duan et al., 1992). For example, Perry (2015) applied SWAT hydrological model to simulate runoff in
the B73A quaternary catchment located east of Blyde River Canyon in South Africa. The observed discharge data was
used to calibrate and validate the using SUFI-2 method in the SWAT-CUP program. Results from calibration showed
good agreement between observed and simulated monthly stream flow data (NSE = 0.80, R2 = 0.83 and percent bias
PBIAS = 12.6%). Moreover, Nkonge et al. (2014) made a study on the application and comparison of two calibration-
uncertainty methods for a distributed model in the Upper Tana Basin. Two uncertainty analysis techniques, including
the GLUE and SUFI-2 were applied to assess the uncertainty of hydrological modeling results of the SWAT model.
The result of this study showed that the best method for calibration and uncertainty analysis is SUFI-2 since SUFI-2
provided satisfactory statistical indicator (NSE = 0.49 and R2 = 0.64), comparing to GLUE (NSE = 0.42 and R2 = 0.62).
So based on researches mentioned above, it is seen that the SWAT model was successful applied in many places to
conduct various studies related to water resource system. Moreover, the SWAT-CUP which is an auto-calibration tool
was selected to calibrate and validate the SWAT model with SUFI-2 method by providing the sufficient results.
Water resources in Stung Pursat catchment are very significant for irrigation development and domestic use. However
water resources in Stung Pursat catchment are increasingly under pressure due to significant increases in paddy rice
+Model
R. Ang, C. Oeurng / Water Science xxx (2017) xxx–xxx 3
Fig. 1. Study area: Stung Pursat River Basin.
production and irrigated area and diversion of water to neighboring catchments for agriculture. The study objective of
this work is to test the applicability of the SWAT model to simulate the streamflow through calibration and validation
for both daily and monthly basis in the Stung Pursat River catchment, one of sub-catchment of Tonle Sap Basin in
Cambodia.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Study area
The Stung Pursat catchment is located in Pursat province, south of the Tonle Sap Lake, and drains an area of
5955 km2 (Fig. 1). The catchment is shared by six districts: Veal Vong, Kravanh, Sampov Meas, Krakor, Bakan and
Kandieng (CNMC, 2011). With an annual average discharge of 2818 MCM into the Tonle Sap Lake, Stung Pursat
originates on the drier eastern slopes of the Cardamom Mountains and flows for approximately 150 km (JICA, 2011).
Two main tributaries, the Stung Peam and Stung Santre (Prey Khong) rivers, flow in a northerly direction and meet the
Pursat River just above Bac Trakuon (CNMC, 2011; JICA, 2011). Elevations in the Pursat catchment range between
6 and 1717 m (masl) (Fig. 2). More than 75% of the catchment encompasses a hilly terrain, with an elevation greater
than 30 m, and is covered by forested land of varying densities (JICA, 2011). The remaining low-lying land is used by
agriculture (Fig. 3). Major soil types in the Pursat catchment are Dystric Leptosol and Cambisol in the upper reaches;
Gleyic and Plintic Acrsols in the mid-elevation reaches and; Dystric Fluvisol and Dystric Gleysol in the lower elevation
reaches (CNMC, 2012) (Fig. 4). Climate in Pursat catchment is influenced by tropical monsoon systems with distinct
wet and dry seasons. The wet season, extending from May to November, is dictated by the southwest monsoon system,
+Model
Fig. 2. Elevation map of Stung Pursat River Basin.
and receives approximately 90% of the total annual rainfall (CNMC, 2012). The annual average rainfall ranges from
1200 mm to 1700 mm (JICA, 2013).
2.2. SWAT model description
The SWAT model is a free software and was developed at the USDA-ARS (Arnold et al., 1998) during the early
1970’s. SWAT model which is a physically based model was developed for application to large and complex watersheds
over long periods of time. Furthermore, it is a flexible framework that allows a simulation of a wide variety of
conservation practices and other best management practices such as fertilizer and manure application rate and timing,
cover crops, filter strips, conservation tillage, irrigation management, flood prevention structures, grassed waterways,
and wetlands (Gassman et al., 2007). SWAT is a physically based model and hence it requires extensive physical
parameters to represent the real hydrological processes in the catchment scale.
From topography data, the watershed is divided into number of sub-catchments. The use of sub-catchments in a
simulation is particularly beneficial when different areas of the catchment are dominated by land-uses or soils dissimilar
enough in properties to impact hydrology. Every sub-catchment is then subdivided into Hydrologic Response Units
(HRUs). Every HRUs is a unique combination of land-use, soil, and management practices in a sub-catchment. Input
information for each sub-catchment is grouped into the following categories: climate; hydrologic response units or
+Model
Fig. 3. Landuse map of Stung Pursat River Basin.
HRUs; groundwater; and the main channel or reach, draining the sub-catchment. The water balance in SWAT is given
as following:

t

SWt = SW0 + Rday − Qsurf − Ea − wseep − Qgw (1)
i=1
where SWt is the final soil water content (mm H2 O), SW0 is the initial soil water content on day i (mm H2 O), t is the
time (mm H2 O), Rday is the amount of rainfall on day i (mm H2 O), Qsurface is the amount of surface runoff on day i
(mm H2 O), Ea is the amount of actual total evaporation on day i (mm H2 O), Wseep is the amount of water entering the
vadose zone from the soil profile on day i (mm H2 O), and Qgr is the amount of groundwater flow on day i (mm H2 O).
2.3. Data acquisition
As mentioned briefly, SWAT which is a physically based model requires much specific information about the basin
in order to be able to represent a complex hydrological process. Thus, the minimum required data of SWAT model
are topography, land-use, soil properties and weather data which were collected from different sources and databases,
summarized in Table 1.
2.4. Sensitivity analysis
Sensitivity analysis is used to estimate the rate of change in model outputs in relation to change in the model inputs.
It helps to determine which parameters are important for accurate results. It facilitates understanding the behaviors
+Model
Fig. 4. Soil type map of Stung Pursat River Basin.
Table 1
The available input data for setting SWAT model.
Data Information Period Description Source
Digital elevation model (DEM) Raster, 30 m-resolution – Terrain elevation ASTER-GDEM 2

Land use map Raster, 250 m-resolution 2002 Land-use classification MRC
Soil type map Raster, 250 m-resolution 2002 Soil classification and physical MRC
properties
Meteorological data Daily 2002–2011 Observed daily rainfall at 3 DHRW of MOWRAM
rainfall stations: Peam, Pursat and
Bap Bat locate in the catchment
Maximum and minimum Global weather data
temperature, humidity, sunshine
hours, and wind speed data with
grid of 0.25◦ spatial resolution
Flow data Daily 2002–2011 Observed daily streamflow at Bac DHRW of MOWRAM
Trakoun Station
of the system being modeled, as well as evaluating the applicability of the model (Abbaspour, 2012). SWAT-CUP
used the multiple regression analysis to determine the sensitive parameters. Then, the Student’s t-distribution which
is a statistical distribution was used to get the statistic value (p-value) of each parameter. The smaller in value of the
p-value, the more sensitive and significant the parameter is. Generally, a p-value of <0.05 is the accepted point at which
to reject the null hypothesis (Abbaspour, 2012). Based upon several previous studies that were conducted near by the
study area, especially, in some catchments of Lower Mekong Basin (Rossi et al., 2009) and Tole Sap lake (Ly and
+Model
Table 2
The selected parameters with initial parameter ranges put into SWAT-CUP program with SUFI-2 method for the parameter sensitivity analysis.
No. Parameter name Description Range Method
Min Max
1 Cn2.mgt Moisture condition II curve number −25% 25% Relative (1)

2 Esco.hur Soil evaporation compensation factor 0 1 Replace (2)
3 Sol Awc.sol Available water capacity of the soil layer −25% 25% Relative (1)
4 Sol Z.sol Depth from soil surface to bottom of layer (mm) 0 3500 Replace (2)
5 Gwqmn.gw Threshold water level in shallow aquifer for base flow 0 5000 Replace (2)
6 Sol K.sol Saturated hydraulic conductivity of first layer 0 2000 Replace (2)
7 Revapmn.gw Threshold water level in shallow aquifer for revap 0 500 Replace (2)
8 Alpha Bf.gw Baseflow alpha factor 0 1 Replace (2)
9 Epco.hur Plant uptake compensation factor 0 1 Replace (2)
10 Ch S2.rte Average slope of main channel 0.001 1 Replace (2)
11 Ch N2.rte Manning’s value for the main channel 0 0.3 Replace (2)
12 Ch K2.rte Effective hydraulic conductivity of main channel 0 500 Replace (2)
13 Surlag.bsn Surface runoff lag coefficient 0 24 Replace (2)
14 GW Revap.gw Groundwater evapotranspiration coefficient 0.02 0.2 Replace (2)
15 GW Delay.gw Ground delay (days) 0 500 Replace (2)
Note: (1): Multiplying initial parameter by value in percentage; (2): replacing initial parameter by value
Oeurng, 2015), 15 parameters were chosen to do sensitivity analysis in order to determine which parameters were most
sensitive in the simulated streamflow, see Table 2. SWAT simulations have been done for the period 2001–2010, where
the simulation period 2001–2002 serves as a warm-up period for the model and is not considered in the sensitivity
analysis and calibration process. SWAT-CUP combined with SUFI-2 method to conduct the sensitivity analysis for a
period of 5 years (2003–2007).
2.5. Model calibration
Model calibration involves the modification of parameter values and comparison of predicted output of interest to
measured data until a defined objective function is achieved (James and Burges, 1982). After the most sensitive model
parameters were identified, these were used for the calibration of the SWAT models by using SWAT-CUP combined
with SUFI-2 method again. They were automatically adjusted in order to simulate the streamflow to meet the observed
value. Anyways, the model calibration process was performed for the same period (2003–2007) as the sensitivity
analysis period.
2.6. Model validation
The purpose of model validation is to establish whether the calibrated model has the ability to predict a streamflow
comparing to observed streamflow for later time periods without making further adjustment of parameters which may
adjust during calibration process. This validation process is also conducted by using ArcSWAT program. In this study,
the data for a period of 3 years (2008–2010) was used for the model validation process.
2.7. Model performance evaluation
Moriasi et al. (2007) recommended three quantitative statistics be used in model performance evaluation in watershed
simulations: The Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE), percent bias (PBIAS) and ratio of the root mean square error to the
standard deviation of measured data (RSR). Moreover, Moriasi et al. (2007) suggested a general performance rating
for the recommend statistics for SWAT model simulation as presented in Table 3.
The Nash–Sutcliffe simulation efficiency (NSE) indicates how well the plot of observed versus simulated value fits
the 1:1 line. If the measured value is the same as all predictions, NSE is 1. If the NSE is between 0 and 1, it indicates
+Model
Table 3
Performance ratings of recommended statistics for streamflow simulation.
Performance rating NSE RSR PBIAS
Unsatisfactory NSE ≤ 0.5 RSR > 0.7 PBIAS ≥ ±25

Satisfactory 0.5 < NSE ≤ 0.65 0.6 < RSR ≤ 0.7 ±15 ≤ PBIAS < ±25
Good 0.65 < NSE ≤ 0.75 0.5 < NSE ≤ 0.6 ±10 ≤ PBIAS < ±15
Very good 0.75 < NSE ≤ 1 0.5 < NSE ≤ 0 PBIAS < ±10
deviations between measured and predicted values. If NSE is negative, predictions are very poor, and the average value
of output is a better estimate than the model prediction (Nash and Sutcliffe, 1970). NSE is defined as:
⎡ n ⎤
2
⎢ Q i − Qi
obs sim
⎥
⎢ i=1 ⎥
NSE = 1 − ⎢ ⎢
⎥ (2)
⎣
n
obs 2 ⎥
⎦
Qi − Qobs mean
i=1
where Qobs
i is the ith observed streamflow, Qsim
i is the ith simulated streamflow, and Qobs
mean is the mean of observed
data.
Percent bias (PBIAS) measures the average tendency of the simulated values to be larger or smaller than their
observed counterparts (Gupta et al., 1999). The optimal value of PBIAS is zero, indicating exact simulation of observed
values. In general, a lower value of PBIAS signifies accurate model simulation. PBIAS, which is the percent deviation
of simulated data, is calculated as:

n

i − Qi
Qobs sim ∗ 100
i=1
PBIAS = (3)

n
Qobs
i
i=1
The RSR is an error index that standardizes the root mean square error using the observations’ standard deviation.
RSR ranges between 0.0 and +1, with low values indicating good model performance. When RSR = 0 indicates that
the model simulation fits perfectly to the measured data, while the large positive RSR values indicate a poor model
performance (Moriasi et al., 2007). RSR is calculated as:

n obs 2
Qi − Qsimi
RMSE i=1
RSR = = (4)
STDEVobs
n obs 2
Qi − Qobsmean
i=1
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Model setup and sensitivity analysis
SWAT model requires the following main data to be performed: landuse, soil characteristics, topography, and climate
data. Firstly, raster maps — topography, landuse, and soil were imported into ArcSWAT 2012 interface. Next, soil and
landuse characteristics were overlaid for each sub-catchment. In addition, the weather data were defined. Finally, it
was ran and simulated a 10-year period with 2 years warm-up from 2001 to 2002. SWAT-CUP with SUFI-2 method
was used to conduct the sensitivity analysis for a period of 5 years (2003–2007) as previously described. The results
of the parameters sensitivity analysis were identified and presented in Table 4 which shows that the 7 most sensitive
+Model
Table 4
Most sensitive parameters for stremflow simulation in Stung Pursat River Basin.
No. Parameter Name Description Rank p-value Range
Min Max
1 R SOL AWC.sol Available water capacity of the soil layer 7 0.046610093 −25% 25%
2 V ESCO.hru Soil evaporation compensation factor 6 0.001468219 0 1
3 V CH N2.rte Manning’s value for the main channel 5 9.3805E-06 0 0.3
4 V SOL K.sol Saturated hydraulic conductivity of first layer 4 4.42605E-11 0 2000
5 V ALPHA BF.gw Baseflow alpha factor 3 5.49431E-20 0 1
6 R CN2.mgt Moisture condition II curve number 2 1.62439E-54 −25% 25%
7 V CH K2.rte Effective hydraulic conductivity of main channel 1 5.69674E-68 0 500
Table 5
Final auto-calibration result of fitted sensitive parameters.
No. Parameter Name Description Range Fitted value
Min Max
1 V SURLAG.bsn Surface runofflag coefficient 0 24 14.330

2 R SOL AWC.sol Available water capacity of the soil layer −25% 25% 0.197
3 V ESCO.hru Soil evaporation compensation factor 0 1 0.693
4 V CH N2.rte Manning’s value for the main channel 0 0.3 0.230
5 V SOL K.sol Saturated hydraulic conductivity of first layer 0 2000 161.216
6 V ALPHA BF.gw Baseflow alpha factor 0 1 0.257
7 R CN2.mgt Moisture condition II curve number −25% 25% -0.371
8 V CH K2.rte Effective hydraulic conductivity of main channel 0 500 369.951
parameters related to streamflow simulation at outlet of the Stung Pursat River Basin among the 15 input parameters.
The most sensitive parameters were shown from the least to the most sensitivity, based on their p-values.
3.2. Model calibration
After the most sensitive parameters related to streamflow simulation were selected during the sensitivity analysis,
the calibration process both daily and monthly time series were conducted for a period of 2003–2007 with SWAT-CUP
program again to define the optimum value of those parameters as illustrated in Table 5.
3.2.1. Daily time series simulation

The statistical indicators showed a regression between the daily observed and simulated streamflow with NSE
of 0.38, PBIAS of +5.1% and RSR of 0.79, respectively. The hydrograph of the daily observed versus simulated
streamflow can be observed in general that the trends of the simulated and observed hydrograph were largely different
(Fig. 5). Additionally, the model simulated low stream flow in the catchment particularly during peak flows than what
were observed. This could be attributed to the representation of observed rainfall mainly at the upstream area with
no observation and flow data since it’s obviously seen that the time of peak flows were not corresponded to the time
of maximum rainfall intensity during the study period (Fig. 5.). The scatter plot between the simulated and observed
streamflow given in Fig. 6, illustrated that the model has underestimated the streamflow since most of the simulated
and observed value were under the line 1:1. This should be attributed to land-use largely changed in this period.
3.2.2. Monthly time series simulation

However, the monthly time series simulation seem to be better, which in turn improved the NSE to 0.60 while decrease
the value of PBIAS and RSR to 1.14, and 0.63 respectively. Fig. 7 showed that the simulated and observed hydrograph
followed the similar pattern and the peaks position was better. The time of peak flows were also corresponded to the
time of maximum rainfall intensity during the year. However, the model slightly failed to capture the value of peak
flows during this calibration period. The scatter plot between the simulated and observed streamflow shows a very
+Model
Fig. 5. The hydrograph of daily simulated and observed flow for calibration period.
Fig. 6. Scatter plot of daily observed versus simulated streamflow for calibration period.
Fig. 7. The hydrograph of monthly simulated and observed flow for calibration period.
good agreement between simulated and observed streamflow values since both values tend to be close to 1:1 line and
it was also found that the model has a predictive capability (Fig. 8).
+Model
Fig. 8. Scatter plot of monthly observed versus simulated streamflow for calibration period.
Fig. 9. The hydrograph of daily simulated and observed flow for validation period.
Fig. 10. Scatter plot of daily observed versus simulated streamflow for validation period.
3.3. Model validation
3.3.1. Daily time series simulation

The statistical indicators still showed a regression between the daily observed and simulated streamflow during
validation period with NSE of −6.61, PBIAS of −78.38% and RSR of 2.67, respectively. Additionally, both Fig. 9 and 10
indicated a slight relation between simulated and observed streamflow, attributed to some data uncertainty like rainfall
representative recorded improperly in this large catchment particularly at the upstream mountainous areas. Furthermore,
+Model
Fig. 11. The hydrograph of monthly simulated and observed flow for validation period.
Fig. 12. Scatter plot of monthly observed versus simulated streamflow for validation period.
water withdrawals were not taken in the model input since there was no available record of water diversion for any
purposes.
3.3.2. Monthly time series simulation

The result of monthly flow validation was not sastified since the values of three statistical indicators: NSE, PBIAS
and RSR are all unsatisfied with the number of 0.27, −41.86 and 0.85 respectively. The scatter plot between observed
and simulated streamflow (Fig. 12) and the hydrograph of observed versus simulated discharge (Fig. 11) also showed
some overestimation, attributed to the water diversion for daily use and irrigation at the upstream part along the Stung
Pursat River catchment that were not considered in this study as previously mentioned due to poor data record from
the relevant water agencies. Moreover, the streamflow data were not well measured since during the validation periods
(2008–2010) with major floods occurred. possibly explained by the low accuracy of the discharge measurement and
stage discharge relationship. Significant land use change due to deforestation upstream can also contribute to model
uncertainty in streamflow modeling in this catchment and only static land use has been used in the model.
4. Conclusions
The results of this study showed that SWAT model fairly well performed in capturing the amount and variability of
daily and monthly streamflow hydrograph time series both in calibration and validation periods. However, it gives an
indication on the possibility of model applicability for local conditions. Better model performance results were attained
during monthly time series calibration period giving a satisfactory value of NSE = 0.6, PBIAS = 1.14 and RSR = 0.63.
This indicated an acceptable performance of the model at monthly time scale in the data scare region. Therefore, the
+Model
SWAT model should be used to simulate monthly streamflow in such an ungauged catchment like the Stung Pursat
catchment due to data scarcity and uncertainty.
References
Abbaspour, K.C., Vejdani, M., Haghighat, S., 2007. SWAT-CUP Calibration and Uncertainty Programs for SWAT. Eawag Web,
https://www.mssanz.org.au/MODSIM07/papers/24 s17/SWAT-CUP s17 Abbaspour .pdf (Accessed 24 September 2016).
Arnold, J.G., Srinivasan, R., Muttiah, R.S., Williams, J.R., 1998. Large-area hydrologic modeling and assessment: part I model development. J. Am.
Water Resour. Assoc. 34 (1), 73–89.
Barlund, I., Kirkkala, T., Malve, O., Kämäri, J., 2007. Assessing the SWAT model performance in the evaluation of management actions for the
implementation of the Water Framework Directive in a Finnish catchment. Environ. Model. Soft. 22 (5), 719–724.
Beven, K., 2006. On undermining the science? Hydrol. Proc. 20 (14), 3141–3146.
Beven, K., Binley, A., 1992. The future of distributed models: model calibration and uncertainty prediction. Hydrol. Process 6 (3), 279–298.
CNMC (Cambodia National Mekong Committee), 2011. Profile of Sub Area Tonle Sap (SA-9C). Mekong River Commission, Phnom Penh.
CNMC (Cambodia National Mekong Committee), 2012. In: Basin Development Plan Program (Ed.), Profile of the Tonle Sap Sub-area (SA-9C).
CNMC, Phnom Penh.
Duan, Q., Sorooshian, S., Gupta, V.K., 1992. Effective and efficient global optimization for conceptual rainfall-runoff models. Water Resour. Res.
28 (4), 1015–1031.
Gassman, P.W., Reyes, M.R., Green, C.H., Arnold, J.G., 2007. The soil and water assessment tool: historical evelopment, applications, and future
research directions. Trans. ASABE 50 (4), 1211–1250.
Gupta, H.V., Sorooshian, S., Yapo, P.O., 1999. Status of automatic calibration for hydrologic models: comparison with multilevel expert calibration.
J. Hydrol. Eng. 4 (2), 135–143.
Gupta, H.V., Wagener, T., Liu, Y., 2008. Reconciling theory with observations: elements of a diagnostic approach to model evaluation. Hydrol. Proc.
22 (18), 3802–3813.
Hao, F., Zhang, X., Yang, Z., 2004. A distributed non-point source pollution model: calibration and validation in the Yellow River Basin. J. Environ.
Sci. 16 (4), 646–650.
Hassen, M.Y., Assefa, M.M., Gete, Z., Tena, A., 2016. Streamflow prediction uncertainty analysis and verification of SWAT model in a tropical
watershed. Environ. Earth Sci. 75, 806, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12665-016-5636-z.
James, L., Burges, S., 1982. Selection, Calibration, and Testing of Hydrologic Models., pp. 437–470.
JICA (Japan International Cooperation Agency), 2011. Report on Examination of Impact of New Dam Plans on the West Tonle Sap Irrigation
Rehabilitation Project in Pursat River Basin. MOWRAM, Phnom Penh.
JICA (Japan International Cooperation Agency), 2013. Brief Progress Report on the Water Balance Examination Study for Pursat and Baribor River
basins. MOWRAM.
John, P.O., Mohammed, A., Lawrence, O.M., 2011. Modelling of streamflow of a catchment in Kenya. J. Water Resour. Prot.
Kaur, R., Srivastava, R., Betne, R., Mishra, K., Dutta, D., 2004. Integration of linear programming and a watershed-scale hydrologic model for
proposing an optimized land-use plan and assessing its impact on soil conservation—a case study of the Nagwan watershed in the Hazaribagh
district of Jharkhand, India. Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci. 18 (1), 73–98.
Kimsun, T., Socheth, H., Santos, P., 2011. What Limits Agricultural Intensification in Cambodia. The Role of Emigration Agricultural Extension
Services and Credit Constraints.
Ly, S., Oeurng, C., 2015. Climate change and water governance in Stung Chrey Bak Cathment of Tonle Sap Great Lake Basin in Cambodia. In: 15th
Annual Conference of the Science Council of Asia (SCA), Siem Reap, Cambodia, pp. 134–138.
MOE (Ministry of Environment), 2013. Synthesis Report On The Cambodian Hydro-Meteorological Information System (HMIS) — Focus on
Disaster Risk Management (DRM) and Climate Change Adaptation Planning, Pilot Program for climate Resilience (PPCR) Phase I.
Moriasi, D.N., Arnold, J.G., Van Liew, M.W., Bingner, R.L., Harmel, R.D., Veith, T.L., 2007. Model evaluation guidelines for systematic quantifi-
cation of accuracy in watershed simulations. Trans. ASABE 50 (3), 885–900.
Nash, J.E., Sutcliffe, J.V., 1970. River flow forecasting through conceptual models part I—a discussion of principles. J. Hydrol. 10 (3), 282–290.
Nkonge, L.K., Sang, J.K., Gathenya, J.M., Home, P.G., 2014. Comparison of two calibration-uncertainty methods for Soil and Water Assessment
Tool in stream flow modelling. Proceedings of Sustainable Research and Innovation Conference, 168–171.
Perry, K.A., 2015. Application of the SWAT Hydrological Model in a Small, Mountainous Catchment in South Africa. University of Pretoria.
Rossi, C.G., Srinivasan, R., Jirayoot, K., Le Duc, T., Souvannabouth, P., Binh, N., Gassman, P.W., 2009. Hydrologic evaluation of the lower Mekong
River basin with the Soil and Water Assessment Tool model. Int. Agric. Eng. J. 18 (1–2), 1–13.
Schuol, J., Abbaspour, K.C., 2006. Calibration and uncertainty issues of a hydrological model (SWAT) applied to West Africa. Adv. Geosci. 9,
137–143.
Srinivasan, R., Zhang, X., Arnold, J.G., 2010. SWAT ungauged: hydrological budget and crop yield predictions in the Upper Mississippi River
Basin. Trans. ASABE 53 (5), 1533–1546.
Sun, H., Cornish, P.S., 2006. A catchmentbased approach to recharge estimation in the Liverpool Plains, NSW, Australia. Aust. J. Agric.
Van Griensven, A., Meixner, T., 2006. Methods to quantify and identify the sources of uncertainty for river basin water quality models. Water Sci.
Technol. 53 (1), 51–59.
Wagener, T., Sivapalan, M., McDonnell, J.J., Hooper, R., Lakshmi, V., Liang, X., Kumar, P., 2004. Predictions in ungauged basins (PUB): a catalyst
for multi-disciplinary hydrology. Eos Trans. AGU 85 (44), 451–452.

Ang 2018

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Ang 2018

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

+Model

WSJ-62; No. of Pages 13 ARTICLE IN PRESS

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/wsj

Simulating streamflow in an ungauged catchment of Tonlesap Lake

Raksmey Ang, Chantha Oeurng ∗

Fig. 1. Study area: Stung Pursat River Basin.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Study area

Fig. 2. Elevation map of Stung Pursat River Basin.

2.2. SWAT model description

Fig. 3. Landuse map of Stung Pursat River Basin.

2.3. Data acquisition

2.4. Sensitivity analysis

Fig. 4. Soil type map of Stung Pursat River Basin.

Digital elevation model (DEM) Raster, 30 m-resolution – Terrain elevation ASTER-GDEM 2

1 Cn2.mgt Moisture condition II curve number −25% 25% Relative (1)

2.5. Model calibration

2.6. Model validation

2.7. Model performance evaluation

Unsatisfactory NSE ≤ 0.5 RSR > 0.7 PBIAS ≥ ±25

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Model setup and sensitivity analysis

1 V SURLAG.bsn Surface runofflag coefficient 0 24 14.330

3.2. Model calibration

3.2.1. Daily time series simulation

3.2.2. Monthly time series simulation

3.3. Model validation

3.3.1. Daily time series simulation

3.3.2. Monthly time series simulation

S-ar putea să vă placă și