You are on page 1of 53
SWAT SWAT Calibration Calibration Techniques Techniques
SWAT
SWAT Calibration
Calibration Techniques
Techniques
Calibration, Validation & Verification FCALIBRATION: model testing with known input and output used to adjust or
Calibration, Validation & Verification
FCALIBRATION: model testing with known input
and output used to adjust or estimate factors
FVALIDATION: comparison of model results with
an independent data set (without further
adjustment).
FVERIFICATION: examination of the numerical
technique in the computer code to ascertain that it
truly represents the conceptual model and that
there are no inherent numerical problems
Calibration/Validation Periods • • • distinct time period similar range of conditions adequate time period to
Calibration/Validation Periods
distinct time period
similar range of
conditions
adequate time period to
simulate conditions
Time
Calibration
Validation
Setup
Flow
Model Configuration F Land use categories – land use types in watershed, existing and future land
Model Configuration
F Land use categories
– land use types in watershed, existing and future land
uses, management techniques employed, management
questions
F Subwatersheds
– location, physical characteristics/soils, gaging station
locations, topographic features, management questions.
F Reaches
– topographic features, stream morphology, cross-section
data available
Calibration Issues:
•individual land use parameter determination
•location of gaging station data
•location of water quality monitoring information
• available information on stream systems
Model Configuration Calibration Points Example
Model Configuration
Calibration Points Example
Calibration/Validation Procedures F Hydrology - first and foremost F Sediment - next F Water quality -
Calibration/Validation
Procedures
F Hydrology - first and foremost
F Sediment - next
F Water quality - last (nitrogen, phosphorus,
pesticides, DO, bacteria)
F Check list for model testing
4
water balance - is it all accounted for?
4
time series
4
annual total - stream flow & base flow
4
monthly/seasonal total
4
frequency duration curve
4
sediment and nutrients balance
Calibration Time Step F Calibration sequence – annual water balance – seasonal variability – storm variability
Calibration Time Step
F Calibration sequence
– annual water balance
– seasonal variability
– storm variability
u time series plot
u frequency duration curve
– baseflow
– overall time series
Calibration/Validation Statistics – Mean and standard deviation of the simulated and measured data – Slope, intercept
Calibration/Validation
Statistics
– Mean and standard deviation of the
simulated and measured data
– Slope, intercept and regression
coefficient/coefficient of determination
– Nash-Suttcliffe Efficiency
Calibration/Validation Common Problems F too little data - monitoring period too short F small range of
Calibration/Validation
Common Problems
F too little data - monitoring period too short
F small range of conditions
only small storms
only storms during the spring ...
F prediction of future conditions which are
outside the model conditions
F calibration/validation does not adequately
test separate pieces of model
– accuracy of each land use category prediction
F calibration adjustments destroy physical
representation of system by model
F adjustment of the wrong parameters
Calibration/Validation Suggested References F Neitsch, S. L., J. G. Kiniry and J. R. Willams. 2001. Soil
Calibration/Validation
Suggested References
F
Neitsch,
S.
L.,
J.
G.
Kiniry and
J.
R.
Willams. 2001. Soil and Water
Assessment
Tool
Arnold, J. R.
Manual,
USDA-ARS
Publications.
pp:
341-354.
http://www.brc.tamus.edu/swat/manual.
F
Santhi, C., J. G. Arnold, J. R. Williams, W. A. Dugas, R. Srinivasan and L. M. Hauck.
2001. Validation of the SWAT Model on a Large River Basin with Point and Nonpoint
Sources. J. American Water Resources Association 37(5): 1169-1188.
F
Srinivasan, R., T. S. Ramanarayanan, J. G. Arnold and S. T. Bednarz. 1997. Large area
hydrologic modeling and assessment: Part II - Model application. J. American Water
Resources Association 34(1): 91-102.
F
Arnold, J.G., R. S. Muttiah, R. Srinivasan and P. M. Allen. 2000. Regional estimation of
baseflow and groundwater recharge in the upper Mississippi basin. J. Hydrology
227(2000): 21-40.
Hydrology Calibration Summary F Key considerations – Water balance u overall amount u distribution among hydrologic
Hydrology Calibration
Summary
F Key considerations
– Water balance
u overall amount
u distribution among hydrologic components
– Storm sequence
u time lag or shifts
– time of concentration, travel time
u shape of hydrograph
– peak
– recession
– consider antecedent conditions
Example Calibration Plot
Example Calibration Plot
Example Calibration Plot Calibration of flow at Hico, Bosque River Watershed, TX Observed Simulated 350 300
Example Calibration Plot
Calibration of flow at Hico, Bosque River Watershed, TX
Observed
Simulated
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Time
Flow Volume (mm/year)
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
Example Calibration Plot
Example Calibration Plot
Hydrologic Calibration Scenario 1 Simulated Observed Time (hours) Flow (cfs)
Hydrologic Calibration
Scenario 1
Simulated
Observed
Time (hours)
Flow (cfs)
Hydrologic Calibration Model failed to simulate some peak flows F Rainfall station is not representative Simulated
Hydrologic Calibration
Model failed to simulate some peak
flows
F Rainfall station is not
representative
Simulated
Observed
F Localized storm -no
response
F Malfunctioning gages
(precipitation or flow)
Time (hours)
Solutions
F
Use precipitation data from representative
meteorological stations
F
Carefully review precipitation and flow data for the
particular duration
Flow (cfs)
Hydrologic Calibration Scenario 2 Simulated Observed Time (hours) Flow (cfs)
Hydrologic Calibration
Scenario 2
Simulated
Observed
Time (hours)
Flow (cfs)
Hydrologic Calibration Model consistently over predicts the flow F High Surface flow Simulated Observed Time (hours)
Hydrologic Calibration
Model consistently over predicts the
flow
F High Surface flow
Simulated
Observed
Time (hours)
Solutions
F
Curve number for different land uses-decrease by 10%
(CN in .mgt)
F
Soil available water - increase upto 0.04
(SOL_AWC in .sol)
F
Soil evaporation compensation factor– increase up to 1.0
(ESCO in *.sub)
Flow (cfs)
Hydrologic Calibration Model consistently over predicts the flow F High base flow F Too little evapotranspiration
Hydrologic Calibration
Model consistently over predicts the
flow
F High base flow
F Too little
evapotranspiration
Simulated
Observed
Time (hours)
Solutions
F
Increase deep percolation loss (Adjust threshold depth of
water in shallow aquifer required for the base flow to
occur) (max 100mm, GWQMN in .gw)
F
Increase groundwater revap coefficient (max of 0.40,
GW_REVAP in .gw)
F
Decrease threshold depth of water in shallow aquifer for
revap to occur (min of 0.0, REVAPMN in .gw)
Flow (cfs)
Hydrologic Calibration Scenario 3 Simulated Observed Time (hours) Flow (cfs)
Hydrologic Calibration
Scenario 3
Simulated
Observed
Time (hours)
Flow (cfs)
Hydrologic Calibration Simulated flow follows the observed pattern but lags the actual flow consistently F Time
Hydrologic Calibration
Simulated flow follows the observed pattern
but lags the actual flow consistently
F Time of concentration is too
long
F Less than actual slope for
overland flow
Simulated
Observed
F Over estimated surface
roughness
F Snow melt parameters
Time (hours)
F Flood routing coefficients
Solutions
F
F
Increase slope (up to 20%) for overland flow (SLOPE)
Manning’s roughness coefficient- lower it after checking
OV_N tables (OV_N)
F
The value of overland flow length- lower to 5-10m, if
necessary (SLSUBBSN)
Flow (cfs)
Hydrologic Calibration Scenario 4 Simulated Observed Time (hours) Flow (cfs)
Hydrologic Calibration
Scenario 4
Simulated
Observed
Time (hours)
Flow (cfs)
Hydrologic Calibration Simulated flow over predicts peak flows but under predicts all other times Simulated F
Hydrologic Calibration
Simulated flow over predicts peak flows but
under predicts all other times
Simulated
F Too little base flow
F Too high surface runoff
Observed
Solutions
Time (hours)
F
Adjust surface runoff until reasonable by lowering CN,
increasing SOL_AWC and adjusting ESCO
F
Adjust base flow until reasonable with GW parameters
F
Iterate between surface runoff and base flow until both
look reasonable
Flow (cfs)
Sediment Calibration Summary F Key considerations – Sources of sediment loadings u Loadings from HRUs/Subbasins u
Sediment Calibration Summary
F Key considerations
– Sources of sediment loadings
u Loadings from HRUs/Subbasins
u Channel degradation/deposition
– Sediment loading distribution
u overall amount
u Seasonal loading
– distribution by storm sequence
• rising and falling limb of hydrograph
• peak concentration
Example Calibration Plot
Example Calibration Plot
Sediment Calibration Scenario 1 Sediment 0.60 Observed 0.50 Simulated 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 1 2
Sediment Calibration
Scenario 1
Sediment
0.60
Observed
0.50
Simulated
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Time in Months
Sediment tons/ha
Sediment Calibration Model consistently under predicts the sediment Sediment 0.60 Observed 0.50 Simulated F Low sediment
Sediment Calibration
Model consistently under predicts the
sediment
Sediment
0.60
Observed
0.50
Simulated
F Low sediment yield
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
Solutions
0.00
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Time in Months
F
Calibrate HRU/Subbasin Loading
USLE crop management factor (P)– Increase after checking
USLE table for reasonable values (USLE_P in .sub)
USLE slope length factor -- Increase by up to 10m (LS)
(SLSUBBSN in .sub)
– Slope of HRUs--Increase by up to 20% (SLOPE in .sub)
Crop practice factor (C) for land use -- Increase by reasonable
amount to account for local conditions (USLE_C in crop.dat)
– Verify tillage operations in *.mgt files; increase crop residue
coefficient upto 0.10 ( RSDCO) and increase bio-mixing efficiency
upto to 0.3 for heavy biological activity (BIOMIX in .bsn)
Sediment tons/ha
Sediment Calibration Model consistently under predicts the sediment Sediment 0.60 F Low sediment yield Observed 0.50
Sediment Calibration
Model consistently under predicts the
sediment
Sediment
0.60
F Low sediment yield
Observed
0.50
Simulated
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Time in Months
Solutions
F
Calibrate Channel degradation/deposition
Linear and exponential parameters used for channel sediment
routing – Increase SPCON upto 0.01 & SPEXP to 2.0 (SPCON and
SPEXP in .bsn)
Channel erodibility factor – Increase to 0.3 to 0.4 if channel is
erodible (CH_EROD in .rte)
– Channel cover factor – Increase upto 1.0 if no vegetation exists
on bank/channel bottom (CH_COV in .rte)
Sediment tons/ha
Sediment Calibration Model consistently under predicts the sediment F Often only have total sediment yield or
Sediment Calibration
Model consistently under predicts the
sediment
F Often only have total sediment yield or
concentration at gage/outlet of watershed
F Not sure if source is upland fields or channel
erosion
F Visit watershed to see if significant channel
erosion is occurring
F Check subbasin yields (t/ha) to make sure they are
reasonable. The remainder must come from the
channels
Sediment Calibration Scenario 2 Sediment 0.60 Observed 0.50 Simulated 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 1 2
Sediment Calibration
Scenario 2
Sediment
0.60
Observed
0.50
Simulated
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Time in Months
Sediment tons/ha
Sediment Calibration Model consistently over predicts the sediment Sediment 0.60 Observed 0.50 Simulated F High sediment
Sediment Calibration
Model consistently over predicts the
sediment
Sediment
0.60
Observed
0.50
Simulated
F High sediment yield
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
Solutions
0.00
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Time in Months
F
Calibrate HRU/Subbasin Loading
– USLE crop management factor (P)– decrease after checking USLE
table for reasonable values (USLE_P in .sub)
USLE slope length – decrease by up to 10m (LS) (SLSUBBSN in .sub)
Slope of HRUs – decrease by up to 20% (SLOPE in .sub)
– Crop practice factor (C) for land use – decrease by reasonable
amount to account for local conditions, check USLE Handbook
(USLE_C in crop.dat)
– Verify tillage operations in *.mgt files; crop residue coefficient –
decrease down to 0.01 if appropriate for plant (RSDCO) and bio-
mixing efficiency – decrease down to 0.01 for lower biological activity
if appropriate (BIOMIX) in .bsn
Sediment tons/ha
Sediment Calibration Model consistently over predicts the sediment Sediment 0.60 Observed F High sediment yield 0.50
Sediment Calibration
Model consistently over predicts the
sediment
Sediment
0.60
Observed
F High sediment yield
0.50
Simulated
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Time in Months
Solutions
F
Calibrate Channel degradation/deposition
Linear and exponential parameters used for channel sediment
routing – decrease SPCON down to 0.0005 and SPEXP down to
1.0 (SPCON and SPEXP in .bsn)
Channel erodibility factor– decrease to 0.01 if bedrock or non-
erosive bank material is present (CH_EROD in .rte)
– Channel cover factor– decrease down to .01 if 100% vegetation
cover exists (CH_COV in .rte)
Sediment tons/ha
Nutrients Calibration Summary F Key considerations – Sources of nutrient loadings u Loadings from HRUs/Subbasins u
Nutrients Calibration Summary
F Key considerations
– Sources of nutrient loadings
u Loadings from HRUs/Subbasins
u In-stream processes
– Nutrient loading distribution
u overall amount
u Seasonal loading
– distribution by storm sequence
• rising and falling limb of hydrograph
• peak concentration
Example Calibration Plot Organic N 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 Months(93-97) Obs Org N kg/ha Sim
Example Calibration Plot
Organic N
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
Months(93-97)
Obs Org N kg/ha
Sim org N kg/ha
Mineral N
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
Months(93-97)
Obs min N kg/ha
Sim min N kg/ha
Monthly calibration of nitrogen at Hico, Bosque Watershed, TX
Min N kg/ha
Org N kg/ha
1
1
5
5
9
9
13
13
17
17
21
21
25
25
29
29
33
33
37
37
41
41
45
45
49
49
53
53
57
57
Mineral Nitrogen Calibration Scenario 1 Mineral Nitrogen 0.60 Observed 0.50 Simulated 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00
Mineral Nitrogen Calibration
Scenario 1
Mineral Nitrogen
0.60
Observed
0.50
Simulated
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Time in Months
Mineral N kg/ha
Mineral Nitrogen Calibration Model consistently under predicts the mineral nitrogen Mineral Nitrogen 0.60 Observed 0.50 Simulated
Mineral Nitrogen Calibration
Model consistently under predicts the
mineral nitrogen
Mineral Nitrogen
0.60
Observed
0.50
Simulated
F Low mineral nitrogen loading
Solutions
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Time in Months
F
Calibrate mineral nitrogen loading
Initial concentration of the nutrient in soils – increase to realistic
levels (SOL_NO3 in .sol)
Verify fertilizer application rates and make sure if fertilizer
application fraction to surface layer (FRT_LY1) = 1, if there is
surface application of fertilizer or manure (FRT_LY1 in .mgt)
Verify tillage operations in *.mgt files; crop residue coefficient –
increase up to 0.10 ( RSDCO); bio-mixing efficiency – decrease
down to 0.01 (BIOMIX) in .bsn
– Nitrogen percolation coefficient--increase up to 1.0 (NPERCO in
.bsn)
F
Calibrate in-stream mineral nitrogen processes
– Fraction of algal biomass that is nitrogen for water
quality -- increase up to 0.10 (AI1 in.wwq)
Mineral N kg/ha
Mineral Nitrogen Calibration Scenario 2 Mineral Nitrogen 0.60 Observed 0.50 Simulated 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00
Mineral Nitrogen Calibration
Scenario 2
Mineral Nitrogen
0.60
Observed
0.50
Simulated
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Time in Months
Mineral N kg/ha
Mineral Nitrogen Calibration Model consistently over predicts the mineral nitrogen Mineral Nitrogen 0.60 Observed Simulated 0.50
Mineral Nitrogen Calibration
Model consistently over predicts the
mineral nitrogen
Mineral Nitrogen
0.60
Observed
Simulated
0.50
F High mineral nitrogen loading
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
Solutions
0.00
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Time in Months
F
Calibrate mineral nitrogen loading
Initial concentration of the nutrient in soils – decrease to near
zero if appropriate (SOL_NO3 in .sol)
– Verify fertilizer application rates and if fertilizer is incorporated or
knifed in to lower layers, adjust FRT_LY1 down to 0.01 (FRT_LY1
in .mgt)
Verify tillage operations in *.mgt files; crop residue coefficient –
decrease down to 0.01 ( RSDCO) and bio-mixing efficiency –
increase to 0.4 (BIOMIX) in .bsn
– Nitrogen percolation coefficient (NPERCO in .bsn)--decrease
down to 0.01
F
Calibrate in-stream mineral nitrogen processes
– Fraction of algal biomass that is nitrogen for water quality –
decrease to 0.06 (AI1 in.wwq)
Mineral N kg/ha
Organic Nitrogen Calibration Scenario 1 Organic Nitrogen 0.60 Observed 0.50 Simulated 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00
Organic Nitrogen Calibration
Scenario 1
Organic Nitrogen
0.60
Observed
0.50
Simulated
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Time in Months
Organic N kg/ha
Organic Nitrogen Calibration Model consistently under predicts the organic nitrogen Organic Nitrogen 0.60 F Low Organic
Organic Nitrogen Calibration
Model consistently under predicts the
organic nitrogen
Organic Nitrogen
0.60
F Low Organic nitrogen
loading
Observed
0.50
Simulated
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
Solutions
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Time in Months
F
Calibrate organic nitrogen loading
Initial concentration of the nutrient in soils (SOL_ORGN in .sol) --
increase to a reasonable level
– Verify fertilizer application rates; make sure if fertilizer
application fraction to surface layer = 1, if there is surface
application of fertilizer or manure (FRT_LY1 in .mgt)
F
Calibrate in-stream organic nitrogen processes
– Fraction of algal biomass that is nitrogen for water quality (AI1
in.wwq) -- increase upto 0.10
Organic N kg/ha
Organic Nitrogen Calibration Scenario 2 Organic Nitrogen 0.60 Observed 0.50 Simulated 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00
Organic Nitrogen Calibration
Scenario 2
Organic Nitrogen
0.60
Observed
0.50
Simulated
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Time in Months
Organic N kg/ha
Organic Nitrogen Calibration Model consistently over predicts the organic nitrogen Organic Nitrogen 0.60 Observed F High
Organic Nitrogen Calibration
Model consistently over predicts the
organic nitrogen
Organic Nitrogen
0.60
Observed
F High Organic nitrogen
loading
0.50
Simulated
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
Solutions
0.00
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Time in Months
F
Calibrate organic nitrogen loading
Initial concentration of the nutrient in soils (SOL_ORGN in .sol)--
decrease to a reasonable level
– Verify fertilizer application rates and if fertilizer is incorporated or
knifed in to lower layers, adjust FRT_LY1 down to 0.01 (FRT_LY1
in .mgt)
F
Calibrate in-stream organic nitrogen processes
– Fraction of algal biomass that is nitrogen for water quality (AI1
in.wwq)-- decrease to 0.06.
Organic N kg/ha
Soluble Phosphorus Calibration Scenario 1 Soluble Phosphorus 0.60 Observed 0.50 Simulated 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00
Soluble Phosphorus Calibration
Scenario 1
Soluble Phosphorus
0.60
Observed
0.50
Simulated
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Time in Months
Soluble P kg/ha
Soluble Phosphorus Calibration Model consistently under predicts the soluble phosphorus Soluble Phosphorus 0.60 Observed 0.50 Simulated
Soluble Phosphorus Calibration
Model consistently under predicts the
soluble phosphorus
Soluble Phosphorus
0.60
Observed
0.50
Simulated
F Low soluble phosphorus loading
0.40
0.30
0.20
Solutions
0.10
0.00
Calibrate soluble phosphorus loading
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
F
Time in Months
Initial concentration of the nutrient in soils – increase to reasonable
levels, up to 250-300ppm if manure has been applied for several
years (SOL_MINP in .sol)
– Verify fertilizer application rates; make sure if fertilizer application
fraction to surface layer = 1, if there is surface application of
fertilizer or manure (FRT_LY1 in .mgt)
Verify tillage operations in *.mgt files; crop residue coefficient –
increase up to 0.10 ( RSDCO); bio-mixing efficiency – decrease
down to 0.01 (BIOMIX in .bsn)
Phosphorus percolation coefficient – decrease down to 10 (PPERCO
in .bsn)
– Phosphorus soil partitioning coefficient – decrease down to 100
(PHOSKD in .bsn)
Soluble P kg/ha
Soluble Phosphorus Calibration Model consistently under predicts the soluble phosphorus Soluble Phosphorus 0.60 F Low soluble
Soluble Phosphorus Calibration
Model consistently under predicts the
soluble phosphorus
Soluble Phosphorus
0.60
F Low soluble phosphorus loading
Observed
0.50
Simulated
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Time in Months
Solutions
F
Calibrate in-stream soluble phosphorus processes
– Fraction of algal biomass that is phosphorus for water quality –
increase up to 0.03 (AI2 in.wwq)
Soluble P kg/ha
Soluble Phosphorus Calibration Scenario 2 Soluble Phosphorus 0.60 Observed 0.50 Simulated 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00
Soluble Phosphorus Calibration
Scenario 2
Soluble Phosphorus
0.60
Observed
0.50
Simulated
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Time in Months
Sol P kg/ha
Soluble Phosphorus Calibration Model consistently over predicts the soluble phosphorus Soluble Phosphorus 0.60 Observed 0.50 Simulated
Soluble Phosphorus Calibration
Model consistently over predicts the
soluble phosphorus
Soluble Phosphorus
0.60
Observed
0.50
Simulated
F High soluble phosphorus
loading
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
Solutions
0.00
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Time in Months
F
Calibrate soluble phosphorus loading
Initial concentration of the nutrient in soils – decrease to near
zero if appropriate (SOL_MINP in .sol)
– Verify fertilizer application rates and if fertilizer is incorporated or
knifed in to lower layers, adjust FRT_LY1 down to 0.01 (FRT_LY1
in .mgt)
Verify tillage operations in *.mgt files; crop residue coefficient –
decrease down to 0.01 ( RSDCO) and bio-mixing efficiency –
increase to 0.4 (BIOMIX in .bsn)
Phosphorus percolation coefficient – increase up to 20 (PPERCO
in .bsn)
– Phosphorus soil partitioning coefficient – increase up to 200
(PHOSKD in .bsn)
Sol P kg/ha
Soluble Phosphorus Calibration Model consistently over predicts the soluble phosphorus Soluble Phosphorus F High soluble phosphorus
Soluble Phosphorus Calibration
Model consistently over predicts the
soluble phosphorus
Soluble Phosphorus
F High soluble phosphorus
loading
0.60
Observed
0.50
Simulated
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Time in Months
Solutions
F
Calibrate in-stream soluble phosphorus processes
– Fraction of algal biomass that is phosphorus for water quality –
decrease down to 0.01 (AI2 in.wwq)
Sol P kg/ha
Organic Phosphorus Calibration Scenario 1 Organic Phosphorus 0.60 Observed 0.50 Simulated 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00
Organic Phosphorus Calibration
Scenario 1
Organic Phosphorus
0.60
Observed
0.50
Simulated
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Time in Months
Organic P kg/ha
Organic Phosphorus Calibration Model consistently under predicts the organic phosphorus Organic Phosphorus 0.60 Observed F Low
Organic Phosphorus Calibration
Model consistently under predicts the
organic phosphorus
Organic Phosphorus
0.60
Observed
F Low organic phosphorus
loading
0.50
Simulated
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
Solutions
0.00
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Time in Months
F
Calibrate organic phosphorus loading
Initial concentration of the nutrient in soils (SOL_ORGP in .sol) --
increase to a reasonable level
– Verify fertilizer application rates; make sure if fertilizer
application fraction to surface layer = 1, if there is surface
application of fertilizer or manure (FRT_LY1 in .mgt)
F
Calibrate in-stream organic phosphorus processes
– Fraction of algal biomass that is phosphorus for water quality
(AI2 in.wwq) -- increase up to 0.03 (AI2 in.wwq)
Organic P kg/ha
Organic Phosphorus Calibration Scenario 2 Organic Phosphorus 0.60 Observed 0.50 Simulated 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00
Organic Phosphorus Calibration
Scenario 2
Organic Phosphorus
0.60
Observed
0.50
Simulated
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Time in Months
Organic P kg/ha
Organic Phosphorus Calibration Model consistently over predicts the organic phosphorus Organic Phosphorus 0.60 Observed F High
Organic Phosphorus Calibration
Model consistently over predicts the
organic phosphorus
Organic Phosphorus
0.60
Observed
F High organic phosphorus
loading
0.50
Simulated
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Solutions
Time in Months
F
Calibrate organic phosphorus loading
Initial concentration of the nutrient in soils (SOL_ORGP in .sol)--
decrease to a reasonable level
– Verify fertilizer application rates and if fertilizer is incorporated or
knifed in to lower layers, adjust FRT_LY1 down to 0.01 (FRT_LY1
in .mgt)
F
Calibrate in-stream organic phosphorus processes
– Fraction of algal biomass that is phosphorus for water quality --
decrease down to 0.01 (AI2 in.wwq)
Organic P kg/ha
Calibration/Validation Suggestion F Information given here are for guidance. It is suggested to take care to
Calibration/Validation
Suggestion
F Information given here are for
guidance. It is suggested to take care
to adjust the various parameters
appropriately depending on the local
watershed conditions.