HYDROLOGICAL PROCESSES Hydrol. Process. 18, 1811 1821 (2004) Published online 12 May 2004 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com).

DOI: 10.1002/hyp.1448

Hydrological modelling of a small watershed using generated rainfall in the soil and water assessment tool model
M. P. Tripathi,1 * R. K. Panda,2 N. S. Raghuwanshi2 and R. Singh2
1

Department of Soil and Water Engineering, Faculty of Agricultural Engineering, Indira Gandhi Agricultural University, Raipur492 006 (Chhattisgarh), India 2 Agricultural and Food Engineering Department, Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur721 302 (West Bengal), India

Abstract:
An adequately tested soil and water assessment tool (SWAT) model was applied to the runoff and sediment yield of a small agricultural watershed in eastern India using generated rainfall. The capability of the model for generating rainfall was evaluated for a period of 18 years (19811998). The watershed and subwatershed boundaries, drainage networks, slope, soil series and texture maps were generated using a geographical information system (GIS). A supervised classication method was used for land-use/cover classication from satellite imageries. Model simulated monthly rainfall for the period of 18 years was compared with observations. Simulated monthly rainfall, runoff and sediment yield values for the monsoon season of 8 years (19911998) were also compared with their observed values. In general monthly average rainfall predicted by the model was in close agreement with the observed monthly average values. Also, simulated monthly average values of surface runoff and sediment yield using generated rainfall compared well with observed values during the monsoon season of the years 19911998. Results of this study revealed that the SWAT model can generate monthly average rainfall satisfactorily and thereby can produce monthly average values of surface runoff and sediment yield close to the observed values. Therefore, it can be concluded that the SWAT model could be used for developing a multiple year management plan for the critical erosion prone areas of a small watershed. Copyright 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
KEY WORDS

GIS; generated rainfall; hydrological modelling; runoff; sediment yield; SWAT model; watershed and subwatershed

INTRODUCTION Surface hydrological modelling mainly includes processes such as runoff and transport of sediment as well as pollutants from the watershed. Many hydrological and water quality models, such as ANSWERS (Beasley and Huggins, 1982), AGNPS (Young et al., 1987), HSPF (Johansen et al., 1984), MIKE SHE (Abbott et al., 1986), SWRRB (Williams et al., 1985), SWIM (Krysanova, et al., 1998), SWAT (Arnold et al., 1996) and WEPP (Lane and Nearing, 1989), are in use at present to evaluate the parameters involved in hydrological and environmental processes. Among these models, the soil and water assessment tool (SWAT) is a newly developed model that can be applied to a large ungauged rural watershed with hundreds of small subwatersheds. It is developed by the U. S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service (USDAARS) (Arnold et al., 1996, 1998). The SWAT model is process based and its major components include surface hydrology, weather, sedimentation, soil temperature, crop growth, nutrients, pesticides, ground water and lateral ow. The compilation and input of hydrological data that are required by the SWAT model can be
* Correspondence to: M. P. Tripathi, Department of Soil and Water Engineering Faculty of Agricultural Engineering, Indira Gandhi Agricultural University, Raipur492 006 (Chhattisgarh), India. E-mail: drmpt64@hotmail.com

Copyright 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Received 2 April 2002 Accepted 23 April 2003

1812

M. P. TRIPATHI ET AL.

extracted with the use of a geographical information system (GIS), mainly from map layers including land use/land cover, digital elevation models (DEM), soil, slope, drainage and watershed boundary. Previous applications of SWAT in several countries have shown promising results (Srinivasan et al., 1993, 1998; Srinivasan and Arnold, 1994; Rosenthal et al., 1995; Cho et al., 1995; Bingner, 1996; Bingner et al., 1997; Peterson and Hamlett, 1998; Tripathi et al. 1999a,b; Arnold et al., 1999a,b; Santhi et al., 2001). In these studies, the model was tested mainly on monthly and annual bases for predicting runoff and sediment yield. A few studies on the application of the SWAT model for developing the best management scenarios for critical erosion-prone areas of the watershed have been reported. However, no study is available in the literature under Indian conditions for prediction of surface runoff and sediment yield using generated rainfall. The basic requirement for any watershed hydrology model is its capability to estimate surface runoff adequately because it inuences the transport of sediments and agro-chemicals. An accurate simulation of runoff processes is thus useful in assessing the watersheds impact on the environment. Knowledge of sediment yield from a watershed is quite essential, as it is often required to determine the quantity of sediment delivered to a downstream reservoir. During the past two decades there has been a dramatic increase in the development and use of hydrological and water quality models to evaluate the complex environmental processes and to asses non-point source pollution of soil and water resources. However, in India little use has been made of hydrological and water quality models to develop management plan for small agricultural watersheds using a systematic modelling approach. It is obvious that rainfall data for several years are required for developing the longterm management plan of a watershed. Many process-based hydrological models, including SWAT, have the capability to generate rainfall and, thereafter, surface runoff, sediment yield and nutrient losses on daily, monthly and annual bases. An adequate procedure to calibrate and validate the SWAT model is an important research issue. A model should be tested adequately before using it to develop effective watershed management plans, specically if generated rainfall is the basic input. Weather data are frequently needed to evaluate the long-term effects of proposed anthropogenic hydrological changes. These evaluations are often undertaken using deterministic mathematical models of hydrological processes. In addressing hydrological response to weather inputs it is seldom sufcient to examine only the response to observed weather events. Use of observed sequences gives a solution based on only one realization of the weather process. What would be the result if another series with the same properties as the observed series were used? What is the range of results that may be obtained with other equally likely weather sequences? To answer these questions, it is desirable to generate synthetic sequences of weather data based on the stochastic structure of the meteorological process with an appropriate model developed for that purpose. The weather variables needed for most of the hydrological and water quality models include precipitation, maximum and minimum temperatures, solar radiation and other variables (Knisel, 1980). These variables are usually recorded daily, and most deterministic models require daily values. Rainfall prediction plays an important role in designing the water harvesting structures, erosion control measures and for developing the management plan for the critical erosion-prone areas of a watershed. Several research workers across the world have developed rainfall prediction models to solve the aforesaid problems (Buishand, 1978; Richardson, 1981; Georgakakos and Bras, 1984). As precipitation is chosen as the primary variable and daily precipitation amounts are determined independently of the other variables, any precipitation model that produces daily precipitation values (subject to some criterion of quality) could be used for the precipitation component. In SWAT a rst-order Markov chain model (Bailey, 1964) is used to describe the occurrence of wet or dry days. The Markov chain model for daily precipitation occurrence has been studied extensively by several investigators (Hopkins and Robillard, 1964; Smith and Schreiber, 1973; Haan et al., 1976). In developing countries, including India, rainfall generally is measured only in a few watersheds. In India, most of the watersheds selected for development and management purposes under various projects have only one rain gauge for the entire watershed. Sometimes it is almost impossible to gauge each and every
Copyright 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Hydrol. Process. 18, 1811 1821 (2004)

SMALL WATERSHED HYDROLOGICAL MODELLING

1813

subwatershed of all watersheds of the country. The ability to generate rainfall for prediction of surface runoff and sediment yield, and thereafter developing the management plan, therefore is essential. Keeping the abovementioned importance of the generated rainfall in estimation of runoff and sediment yield in mind, this study was undertaken to estimate runoff and sediment yield of a watershed located in eastern India using generated rainfall by the SWAT model.

METHODS AND MATERIALS Study area The Nagwan watershed of Upper Damodar Valley situated in Hazaribagh District of Bihar State in eastern India was selected for the study. The watershed has a drainage area of 9246 km2 and lies between 8525 8543 E longitude and 2399 2412 N latitude with an elevation ranging from 550 to 640 m above mean sea-level (Figure 1). The topography of the watershed is undulating. The slope ranges from 21 to 91% and the average slope of the watershed is about 23%. Predominant soil of the watershed is silt loam. Sandy loam, clay loam, loam, loamy sand and silty clay loam are also found in the watershed. The watershed receives an average annual rainfall of 1256 mm, of which the monsoon season (June to October) contributes more than 80% rainfall. The daily mean temperature ranges from a maximum of 40 C to a minimum of 3 C. The daily mean relative humidity varies from a minimum of 40% in the month of April to a maximum of 85% in the month of July. The overall climate of the area can be classied as subhumid tropical.

Nagwan Watershed in India

DELHI PATNA DVC HAZARIBAGH CALCUTTA 85.43 E 24.12 N

LEGEND: O - Outlet/gaging station Not to the scale

85.25 E 23.99 N

85.43 E 23.99 N

Figure 1. Location of Nagwan watershed in India

Copyright 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Hydrol. Process. 18, 1811 1821 (2004)

1814

M. P. TRIPATHI ET AL.

Data acquisition Historical daily rainfall data for 18 years (19811998), measured at the outlet of the Nagwan watershed by a non-recording rain gauge were collected and analysed to nd out the best tting frequency distribution for mean monthly rainfall. Rainfall data for 1991 to 1998 from a recording-type rain gauge were also collected for the purpose of determining the 05 and 60 h rainfall of 10 years frequency. Other meteorological data such as maximum and minimum air temperature and relative humidity were collected from a meteorological observatory at Hazaribagh, which is about 8 km away from the outlet. Owing to non-availability of location-specic data, some of the weather data, such as solar radiation and wind velocity, collected at the meteorological observatory at Ranchi, which is about 70 km away from the study area, were used. Measured monthly average values for 18 years (19811998) for the rainfall, temperature, relative humidity, wind velocity and solar radiation are given in Table I. Hydrological data in addition to rainfall were also collected for the study. For the Nagwan watershed, 8 years (19911998) of daily surface runoff and sediment yield data were collected for the monsoon season from the Soil Conservation Department, Hazaribagh. Topographic maps at 1 : 50 000 scale from the Survey of India, Calcutta and soil resources data from Damodar Valley Corporation (DVC), Hazaribagh were used in this study. IRS-1B (LISS II) satellite data, with pass dates of 7 October 1991 and 19 October 1996, were used for land-use/land-cover classication. Soil and water assessment tool model description The SWAT model estimates runoff volume by using the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) curve number technique (USDA, 1972). Erosion and sediment yield are estimated for each sub-basin with the Modied Universal Soil Loss Equation (MUSLE) (Williams and Berndt, 1977). Sub-basin components and the mathematical relationships used to simulate the processes and their interactions in the model are described by Arnold et al. (1996). The weather generator of the SWAT model simulates daily rainfall and temperature if these data are not available. Solar radiation, wind speed and relative humidity are always generated by the weather generator and used by the model. One set of weather variables may be simulated for the entire basin, or a different set of weather variables may be simulated for each sub-basin. A rst-order Markov chain model developed by Nicks (1974) is used in the SWAT model. Input for this model includes monthly probabilities of receiving precipitation if the previous day was either wet or dry. Given the wet/dry state, the model determines stochastically if precipitation occurs or not. A random number (01) is generated and compared with the appropriate wet/dry probability. If the random number is less than or equal to the wet/dry probability, precipitation occurs on that day. If the random number is greater than the wet/dry probability no precipitation occurs on that day. As the wet/dry state of the rst day is established, the process can be repeated for the next day and so on throughout the simulation period. If wet/dry probabilities are not available, the average monthly number of rainy days may be substituted (Arnold et al., 1996). The probability of a wet day is calculated directly from the number of wet days NWD 1 ND where PW is the probability of a wet day, NWD is the number of rainy days and ND is the number of days, in a month. The probability of a wet day after a dry day can be estimated as a fraction of PW PW D P(W/D) D PW 2

where P(W/D) is the probability of a wet day following a dry day and where is a fraction usually in the range of 06 to 09. For many locations, D 075 gives satisfactory estimates of P(W/D). The probability of a wet day following a wet day P(W/W) can be calculated directly by using the equation P(W/W) D 10
Copyright 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

C P(W/D)

3
Hydrol. Process. 18, 1811 1821 (2004)

Table I. Weather generator input data le (.wgn)a Month January February 217 7 8 017 424 4 3 2 0 2 029 277 7 8 8 9 9 5 101 106 114 123 286 126 154 186 0 5 053 034 098 327 384 154 119 059 033 0 4 129 617 937 7 9 306 133 105 3 4 3 5 15 21 19 6 5 3 7 125 20 38 407 435 36 16 582 292 116 103 505 562 608 614 520 414 426 442 008 007 004 005 008 004 008 004 108 156 196 231 235 231 234 223 18 005 463 207 5 144 1 4 1 4 8 2 257 303 357 372 34 297 296 291 286 March April May June July August September October November December 256 121 008 458 2 2 2 045 043 166 7 4 241 77 019 421 44 2 05 047 157 78
SMALL WATERSHED HYDROLOGICAL MODELLING

Copyright 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Parameter

Average monthly maximum temperature Average monthly minimum temperature Coefcient of variation for monthly temperature Monthly daily solar radiation (ly) Monthly maximum 0.5 h rainfall (mm) Monthly days of precipitation in a month Monthly mean of daily precipitation (mm) Monthly standard deviation of daily precipitation Monthly skew coefcient of daily precipitation Average monthly wind speed (km/h)

Hydrol. Process. 18, 1811 1821 (2004)

Based on a 7-year (1991 1998) record the 05 and 60 h rainfall amounts for a 10-year frequency are 313 mm and 805 mm, respectively.

1815

1816

M. P. TRIPATHI ET AL.

When a precipitation event occurs, the amount is generated from a skewed normal daily precipitation distribution 3 SCFk SCVk SNDi C1 1 60 60 4 Ri D RSDVk C Rk SCFk

where R is the amount of rainfall on day i (mm), SND is the standard normal deviate for day i, SCF is the skew coefcient, RSDV is the standard deviation of daily rainfall (mm), and R is the mean daily rainfall in month k . If the standard deviation and skewness coefcients are not available, the model simulates daily rainfall by using a modied exponential distribution. Ri D ln
10

Rk ln dx

00

where is a uniform random number 0010 and is a parameter usually in the range of 10 to 20. The modied exponential is usually a satisfactory substitute and requires only the monthly mean of daily precipitation as input. Amount of daily precipitation is partitioned between rainfall and snowfall using average daily air temperature. Data processing for the model Observed daily rainfall and temperature data of Nagwan watershed for the years 1981 to 1998 were used as input to the model. The 05 and 60 h rainfall amounts for a 10-year frequency were determined by the procedure suggested by Chow (1964). The 10-year frequency amounts of 05 and 60 h rainfall are 314 mm and 785 mm, respectively. The conic method of interpolation was used to obtain the digital elevation model (DEM). The watershed and subwatershed boundaries, drainage networks and slope map were generated in the environment of a GIS using the procedure described by Jenson and Domingue (1988). The automatically delineated watershed area (9023 km2 closely matched the actual area 9246 km2 . The error of calculation was found to be only 24% (Tripathi, 1999). Hence the automatically delineated watershed was used for further study. A watershed can be subdivided on the basis of natural topographic boundaries, smaller relatively homogeneous areas and grids or cells (Arnold et al., 1998). To preserve the natural ow paths, boundaries and channels for realistically routing water, sediment and chemicals the delineated watershed was divided into 12 subwatersheds on the basis of topography. A supervised classication, the most commonly used, method was used for land-use classication. The landuse/land-cover classes used were upland paddy, lowland paddy, orchards, deep water, shallow water, closed forest, open forest, fallow land, shrubs, upland crops and settlements. After classication of each of the land-use classes, its accuracy was assessed. Overall accuracies of 8655% and 8536% and Kappa coefcient 0765 and 0757 for years 1991 and 1996, respectively, were achieved, which were used for further analysis (Tripathi, 1999). Three main soil series occur in the watershed; they are the Atia, Harina and Bhushwa series, which occupy 155, 524 and 223 km2 areas, respectively. The areas under different soil textures were found to be 110, 146, 121, 83, 390 and 52 km2 for silty clay loam, loam, sandy loam, loamy sand, silt loam and clay loam, respectively. Most of the data required for the model were extracted from GIS layers including DEM, land use, soil texture, soil series, drainage and slope maps (Tripathi, 1999). The weighted curve number for each
Copyright 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Hydrol. Process. 18, 1811 1821 (2004)

SMALL WATERSHED HYDROLOGICAL MODELLING

1817

Table II. Subwatershed (sub-basin) input data for the SWAT model Subwatershed Area km2 Slope (%) Curve number 1991 WS1 WS2 WS3 WS4 WS5 WS6 WS7 WS8 WS9 WS10 WS11 WS12 1719 933 627 989 1467 354 946 424 310 723 480 051 2 2 3 0 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 8 3 1 2 3 2 9 3 3 2 9 9 1 731 687 769 589 668 771 715 677 731 671 777 731 1996 836 710 797 550 689 801 690 689 747 665 792 668 Average slope length (m) 4643 4938 4816 4564 3958 4923 5170 5743 4378 4547 4794 2908 Channel length (m) 960 528 180 540 600 225 576 294 225 540 336 090 Channel slope (%) 0005 0008 0001 0004 0005 0001 0005 0006 0008 0009 0009 0006 K value P value

028 019 022 026 021 019 024 019 023 023 017 025

060 050 060 060 060 050 050 060 050 050 050 060

Table III. Parameters used for the model calibration Serial number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Calibrated parameters Base ow factor Effective hydraulic conductivity Channel n value Overland ow n value Fraction of eld capacity Alpha factor for ground water Specic yield Values chosen 050 64 004 0065 0 0 006 0 3 Prescribed range 0010 64250 00250065 006012 0010 0001 0005

subwatershed was calculated using standard curve numbers for Indian conditions (Dhruva Narayana, 1993). Subwatershed input parameters were analysed using the standard procedure and are given in Table II. The input parameters for the model were given for each subwatershed. The weighted average values for the parameters such as curve number, surface slope, channel length, average slope length, channel width, channel depth, soil erodibility factor and other soil layer data were taken for each subwatershed. The initial soil water storage, overland ow and Mannings n value for overland and channel calibrated by Tripathi et al. (1999a, b) were considered for evaluating the model performance (Table III). The values of all other parameters were taken as suggested in the users manual (Arnold et al., 1996). In addition to observed daily rainfall for the years 1981 to 1998, surface runoff and sediment yield for the monsoon season (June to October) of the years 1991 to 1998 were analysed and used for evaluating the model performance on a monthly basis. The model performance was evaluated on the basis of test criterion recommended by the ASCE Task Committee (1993). Various other methods, such as graphical and linear regression methods, statistical tests of signicance and the NashSutcliffe simulation efciency test (Nash and Sutcliffe, 1970), were also used.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Model performance was evaluated for generating the rainfall and thereby monthly averages of surface runoff and sediment yield from a small watershed. The average values of observed and simulated rainfall, runoff and sediment yields were compared on a monthly basis for evaluating the performance of the weather generator.
Copyright 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Hydrol. Process. 18, 1811 1821 (2004)

1818

M. P. TRIPATHI ET AL.

Table IV. Statistical results of the observed and simulated monthly rainfall (19811998) Statistical parameters Rainfall (mm) Observed Mean Standard error Standard deviation Maximum Minimum Total Count t-calculated t-critical (two-tail) r2 Coefcient of efciency Percentage deviation 10116 3460 12918 31844 978 125594 12 1029 2201 0972 0958 67 Simulated 10978 3757 13420 37579 672 133963 12

Observed 400 350 Rainfall (mm) 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 J F M A M J J Months

Predicted

Figure 2. Graphical comparison of observed and predicted monthly average rainfall for the years 1981 to 1998

Simulations were performed for 18 years (1981 to 1998) and results are given in Table IV. The graphical comparison indicated a close agreement between observed and simulated average monthly rainfall (Figure 2). The scattergram of observed and simulated monthly average rainfall indicated that the observed and simulated rainfall values were uniformly distributed along a 1 : 1 line (Figure 3). The coefcient of determination (r 2 ) of 0972 and coefcient of simulation efciency (COE) of 0958 indicate that the weather generator model was able to generate monthly rainfall close to the observed rainfall. The mean values of observed (10116 mm) and simulated (10978 mm) rainfall were compared statistically by applying Students t-test. It was found that the means of monthly observed and simulated rainfall were comparable at the 95% level of condence because t-calculated (1029) was found to be less than t-critical (2201). Similarities in means and standard deviations indicate that the frequency distribution of predicted rainfall was similar to the observed rainfall during the period of simulation. The low value of deviation (67%) also indicates that the model predicted monthly rainfall values were close to the observed values. The model performance was also evaluated for the monthly average values of rainfall, runoff and sediment yield for the monsoon season of the years 1991 to 1998 and the results are given in Table V. Results show that the model could predict monthly rainfall values close to the observed values for the monsoon season.
Copyright 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Hydrol. Process. 18, 1811 1821 (2004)

SMALL WATERSHED HYDROLOGICAL MODELLING

1819

Regression line 400 350 Predicted rainfall (mm) 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 50 100 150 200 250

1:1 line

300

350

400

Observed rainfall (mm)

Figure 3. Scattergram of observed and predicted monthly average rainfall for the years 1981 to 1998

Table V. Results of statistical analysis for monthly observed and simulated rainfall, runoff and sediment yield during monsoon season (19911998) using generated rainfall Statistical parameters Rainfall (mm) Observed Mean Standard error Standard deviation Maximum Minimum Total Count t-calculated t-critical (two-tail) r2 Percentage deviation 20333 4083 9130 27464 5123 101665 5 1314 2776 0938 115 Simulated 22680 5429 12141 34000 3600 113400 5 Runoff (mm) Observed 6368 1671 3736 10722 1391 31840 5 0893 2776 0797 109 Simulated 7060 1674 3742 10550 2270 35299 5 Sediment (t/ha) Observed 078 018 041 123 013 390 5 0267 2776 0807 50 Simulated 082 029 064 159 003 409 5

A high value of coefcient of determination (0938) indicates that predicted monthly rainfall values were in close agreement with the observed rainfall values for the verication period. Students t-test indicates that the means of observed (20333 mm) and simulated (22680 mm) rainfall were statistically similar at the 95% level of condence, as t-calculated was found to be less than t-critical. The coefcient of determination value indicates that the model over predicted monthly average rainfall for the monsoon season by 115%. Results show that the monthly simulation of average runoff using generated rainfall was satisfactory because means of observed and predicted runoff were similar at the 95% level of condence (Table V). The low value of percentage deviation (109%) between simulated and observed runoff indicates that the model predicted the monthly runoff well during those years. This may be because of adequate generation of daily rainfall during the monsoon season of 1991 through to 1998. The number of simulation years was low (only 8). This could be the cause of over prediction of daily values of runoff. Long-term (more than 20 years) simulation of rainfall could improve the monthly runoff simulation results. Arnold and Williams (1987) also reported similar results. They tested the same weather generator, which was available with the SWRRB model.
Copyright 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Hydrol. Process. 18, 1811 1821 (2004)

1820

M. P. TRIPATHI ET AL.

Furthermore, the statistical results indicate that the means of predicted monthly sediment yield (078 t/ha) matched the means of observed sediment yield (082 t/ha) at the 95% level of condence, as t-calculated was found to be less than t-critical (Table V). The percentage deviation (50%) and coefcient of determination (0807) values indicate that the sediment yields predicted by the model during the verication period were in good agreement with the observed average sediment yields. On the basis of these results it can be inferred that the model can be used for long-term simulation of hydrological parameters using generated rainfall and for assessing their impact on agricultural activities in the Nagwan watershed.

CONCLUSIONS 1. The SWAT model can generate monthly average rainfall using a rst-order Markov chain model satisfactorily. 2. The SWAT model can predict monthly average values of runoff and sediment yield for the monsoon season using generated rainfall. 3. The model can be used for planning and management of critical subwatersheds of a small watershed on a long-term basis using generated rainfall.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors wish to acknowledge the CSIR, New Delhi for providing nancial assistance to conduct this study. Er. Kamal Misra, Director (Soil Conservation) DVC, Hazaribagh, Bihar and Project Co-ordinator, IGBP Watershed Management, New Delhi are also acknowledged by the authors for providing the data to conduct the above study. The facilities and support provided by the Department of Agricultural and Food Engineering, IIT, Kharagpur and RRSSC, IIT Campus are sincerely acknowledged.

REFERENCES Abbott MB, Bathurst JC, Cunge JA, OConnell PE, Rasmussen J. 1986. An introduction to the European hydrological system-systeme hydrologique European SHE. 1: history and philosophy of a physically based distributed modeling system. Journal of Hydrology 87: 4559. Arnold JG, Williams JR 1987. Validation of SWRRB-simulator for water resources in rural basin. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, American Society of Civil Engineers 113(2): 243 256. Arnold JG, Williams JR, Srinivasan R, King KW. 1996. In Soil and Water Assessment Tool, Uses Manual . USDA, Agriculture Research Service, Grassland, Soil and Water Research Laboratory: 808 East Blackland Road Temple, TX 76502. Arnold JG, Srinivasan R, Muttiah RS, Williams JR. 1998. Large area hydrologic modeling and assessment. Part I: model development. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 34(1): 7389. Arnold JG, Srinivasan R, Muttiah RS, Allen PM. 1999a. Continental scale simulation of the hydrologic balance. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 35(5): 1037 1051. Arnold JG, Srinivasan R, Ramanarayanan TS, DiLuzio M. 1999b. Water resources of the Texas Gulf Basin. Water Science and Technology 39(3): 121133. ASCE Task Committee. 1993. Criteria for evaluation of watershed models. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering 119(3): 429442. Bailey NTJ. 1964. In The Elements of Stochastic Processes. Wiley: New York; 39. Beasley DB, Huggins LF. 1982. ANSWERS-Users Manual . EPA-905/9-82-001, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5: Chicago, IL; 54 pp. Bingner RL. 1996. Runoff simulation from Goodwin Creek watershed using SWAT. Transactions of the American Society Agricultural Engineers 39(1): 8590. Bingner RL, Garbrecht J, Arnold JG, Srinivasan R. 1997. Effect of watershed division on simulation of runoff and ne sediment yield. Transactions of the American Society of Civil Engineers 40(5): 1329 1335. Buishand TA. 1978. Some remarks on the use of daily rainfall models. Journal of Hydrology 36: 295308. Cho SM, Jennings GD, Stallings C, Devine HA. 1995. GIS-based Water Quality Model Calibration in the Delaware River Basin. ASAE Microche No. 952404, American Society of Agricultural Engineers: St Joseph, MI. Chow VT. 1994. In Handbook of Applied Hydrology . McGraw Hill: New York.

Copyright 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Hydrol. Process. 18, 1811 1821 (2004)

SMALL WATERSHED HYDROLOGICAL MODELLING

1821

Dhruva Narayana, VV. 1993. In Soil and Water Conservation Research in India . Indian Council of Agricultural Research: Krishi Anusandhan Bhavan, Pusa, New Delhi; 146 151. Georgakakos KP, Bras RL. 1984. A hydrologically useful station precipitation model. Water Resources Research 20(11): 1585 1610. Haan CT, Allen DM, Street JO. 1976. A Markov chain model of daily rainfall. Water Resources Research 12(3): 443 449. Hopkins JW, Robillard P. 1964. Some statistics of daily rainfall occurrence for the Canadian prairie provinces. Journal of Applied Meteorology 3: 600 602. Jenson SK, Domingue JO. 1988. Extracting topographic structure from digital elevation data for geographic information system analysis. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 54(11): 1593 1600. Johansen NB, Imhoff JC, Kittle JL (Jr), Donigian AS. 1984. Hydrological Simulation ProgramFortran (HPSF): Users Manual for Release 8 . EPA-600/3-84-066, US Environmental Protection Agency: Athens, GA. Knisel WG. 1980. CREAMS: a Field Scale Model for Chemicals, Runoff, and Erosion from Agricultural Management Systems. Conservation Research Report No. 26, US Department of Agriculture: Washington, DC; 643. Krysanova V, M uller-Wohlfeil DI, Becker A. 1998. Development and test of a spatially distributed hydrological/water quality model for mesoscale watersheds. Ecological Modelling 106: 261 289. Lane LJ, Nearing MA. 1989. USMAWater Erosion Prediction Project: Hill Slope Prole Model Documentation. NSERL Report No. 2, USDA-ARS National Soil Erosion Research Laboratory: West Lafayette, IN; 21219. Nash JE, Sutcliffe JV. 1970. River ow forecasting through conceptual models, part I: a discussion of principles. Journal of Hydrology 10(3): 282290. Nicks AD. 1974. Stochastic Generation of the Occurrence, Pattern and location of maximum amount of daily rainfall. In Proceedings, Symposium on Statistical Hydrology, AugustSeptember 1971, Tucson, AZ. Miscellaneous Publication No. 1275, U.S. Department of Agriculture Washington, DC; 154 171. Peterson JR, Hamlett JM. 1998. Hydrological calibration of the SWAT model in a watershed containing fragipan soils. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 34(3): 531 544. Richardson CW. 1981. Stochastic simulation of daily precipitation of daily precipitation, temperature and solar radiation. Water Resources Research 17(1): 182190. Rosenthal WD, Srinivasan R, Arnold JG. 1995. Alternative river management using a linked GIShydrology model. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers 38(3): 783 790. Santhi C, Arnold JG, Williams JR, Dugas WA, Srinivasan R, Hauck LM. 2001. Validation of the SWAT model on a large river basin with point and nonpoint sources. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 37(5): 1169 1188. Smith RE, Schreiber HA. 1973. Point process of seasonal thunderstorm rainfall, I. distribution of rainfall events. Water Resources Research 9(4): 871 884. Srinivasan R, Arnold JG. 1994. Integration of a basin scale water quality model with GIS. Water Resources Bulletin 30(3): 453 462. Srinivasan R, Arnold JG, Rosenthal W, Muttiah RS. 1993. Hydrologic Modeling of Texas Gulf Basin Using GIS. In Proceedings of the 2nd International GIS and Environmental Modeling, Breckinridge, Colorado; 213 217. Srinivasan R, Ramanarayanan TS, Arnold JG, Bednarz ST. 1998. Large area hydrologic modeling and assessment part II: model application. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 34(1): 91101. Tripathi MP. 1999. Hydrological Modelling for Effective Management of a Small Watershed. PhD thesis, Agricultural and Food Engineering Department, Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, India. Tripathi MP, Panda RK, Raghuwanshi NS. 1999a. Estimation of Sediment Yield from a Small Watershed Using SWAT Model. In Proceedings of the Civil and Environmental Engineering Conference on New Frontiers and Challenges, 812 November 1999, Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok, Thailand; I-87I-96. Tripathi MP, Panda RK, Raghuwanshi NS. 1999b. Runoff Estimation from a Small Watershed Using SWAT Model. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Water, Environment, Ecology, Socio-Economics and Health Engineering, 1821 October 1999, Seoul, Korea; 143152. USDA-SCS. 1972. In Hydrology . National Engineering Hand Book, Section 4, Chapters 410, SCS: Washington, DC. Williams JR, Berndt HD. 1977. Sediment yield prediction based on watershed hydrology. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers 20(6): 1100 1104. Williams JR, Nicks AD, Arnold JG. 1985. Simulator for water resources in rural basins. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers , 111(6): 970986. Young RA, Onstad CA, Bosch DD, Anderson WP. 1987. AGNPS: an Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution Model: a Large Watershed Analysis Tool . Conservation Research Report 35, US Department of Agriculture: Washington, DC; 77 pp.

Copyright 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Hydrol. Process. 18, 1811 1821 (2004)