Defining Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) hydrologic response units (HRUs) by field boundaries

Margaret M. Kalcic, Indrajeet Chaubey, Jane Frankenberger

Abstract


The Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) is widely used to relate farm management practices to their impacts on surface waters at the watershed scale, yet its smallest spatial unit is not generally defined by physically meaningful boundaries. The hydrologic response unit (HRU) is the smallest spatial unit of the model, and the standard HRU definition approach lumps all similar land uses, soils, and slopes within a subbasin based upon user-defined thresholds. This standard method provides an efficient way to discretize large watersheds where simulation at the field scale may not be computationally feasible. In relatively smaller watersheds, however, defining HRUs to specific spatial locations bounded by property lines or field borders would often be advantageous, yet this is not currently possible within the ArcSWAT interface. In this study, a simple approach is demonstrated that defines HRUs by field boundaries through addition of uniquely named soils to the SWAT user soil database and creation of a field boundary layer with majority land use and soil attributes. Predictions of nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment losses were compared in a case study watershed where SWAT was set up using both the standard HRU definition and field boundary approach. Watershed-scale results were reasonable and similar for both methods, but aggregating fields by majority soil type masked extremely high soil erosion predicted for a few soils. Results from field-based HRU delineation may be quite different from the standard approach due to choosing a majority soil type in each farm field. This approach is flexible such that any land use and soil data prepared for SWAT can be used and any shapefile boundary can divide HRUs.
Keywords: watershed, modeling, Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT), hydrologic response units, field boundaries, common land units, landuse management
DOI: 10.3965/j.ijabe.20150803.951 Online first on [2015-03-03]

Citation: Kalcic M M, Chaubey I, Frankenberger J. Defining Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) hydrologic response units (HRUs) by field boundaries. Int J Agric & Biol Eng, 2015; 8(3): 69－80.

Keywords


watershed, modeling, Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT), hydrologic response units, field boundaries, common land units, landuse management

Full Text:

PDF

References


Arnold J G, Srinivasan R, Muttiah R S, Williams J R. Large area hydrology modeling and assessment part 1: Model development. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 1998; 34(1): 73–89.

Gassman P W, Reyes M R, Green C H, Arnold J G. The Soil and Water Assessment Tool: historical development, applications, and future research directions. Transactions of the ASABE, 2007; 50(4): 1211–1250.

Gitau M W, Veith T L, Gburek W J. Farm-level optimization of BMP placement for cost-effective pollution reduction. Transactions of the ASAE, 2004; 47(6): 1923–1931.

Pai N, Saraswat D, Srinivasan R. Field_SWAT: a tool for mapping SWAT output to field boundaries. Computers & Geosciences, 2011; 40: 175–184.

MATLAB version 7.14.0. Natick, Massachusetts: The MathWorks Inc. 2012.

Daggupati P, Douglas-Mankin K R, Sheshukov A Y, Barnes P L, Devlin D L. Field-level targeting using SWAT: Mapping output from HRUs to fields and assessing limitations of GIS input data. Transactions of the ASABE, 2011; 54(2): 501–514.

Teshager A D, Misgna G, Gassman P, Secchi S, Schoof J. Modeling agricultural watersheds with the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT): Data challenges and issues. (Unpublished Research Document)

Veith T L, Sharpley A N, Weld J L, Gburek W J. Comparison of measured and simulated phosphorus losses with indexed site vulnerability. Transactions of the ASAE, 2005; 48(2): 557–565.

Veith T L, Sharpley A N, Arnold J G. Modeling a small, northeastern watershed with detailed, field-level data. Transactions of the ASABE, 2008; 51(2): 471–483.

Ghebremichael L T, Veith T L, Hamlett J M, Gburek W J. Precision feeding and forage management effects on phosphorus loss modeled at a watershed scale. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 2008; 63(5): 280–291.

Ghebremichael L T, Veith T L, Watzin M C. Determination of critical source areas for phosphorus loss: Lake Champlain basin, Vermont. Transactions of the ASABE, 2010; 53(5): 1595–1604.

Moriasi D N, Gowda P H, Arnold J G, Mulla D J, Ale S, Steiner J L, et al. Evaluation of the Hooghoudt and Kirkham tile drain equations in the Soil and Water Assessment Tool to simulate tile flow and nitrate-nitrogen. Journal of Environmental Quality, 2013; 42(6): 1699–1710.

National Land Cover Database (NLCD) 2006. 2011 Edition. Available at: http://www.mrlc.gov/nlcd06_data.php. Accessed on [2011-03-11].

National Climatic Data Center. Climate at a Glance. Plotted average annual temperature for West Central Indiana from 1901-2000. Available at: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ cag/. Accessed on [2014-06-11].

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Farm Service Agency. Common Land Unit (CLU) dataset. 2012. Available for purchase at: http://data.geocomm.com/ readme/usda/clu.html. Accessed on [2011-10-21].

National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) Cropland Data Layer (CDL). 2009. Available at: http://datagateway. nrcs.usda.gov/. Accessed on [2011-01-15].

Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database. 2005. Available at: http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov/. Accessed on [2011-03-17].

Environmental Systems Resource Institute (ESRI). ArcMap 10.0. ESRI, Redlands, California. 2010.

Sheshukov A Y, Daggupati P, Douglas-Mankin K R, Lee M. High spatial resolution soil data for watershed modeling: 1. Development of a SSURGO-ArcSWAT utility. Journal of Natural and Environmental Sciences, 2011; 2(2): 15–24.

National Elevation Dataset (NED). One-third arc second resolution. Available at: http://ned.usgs.gov/. Accessed on [2011-02-15].

National Hydrography Dataset (NHD). High resolution streams. Available at: http://nhd.usgs.gov/data.html. Accessed on [2009-06-09].

National Climate Data Center (NCDC). Available at: http:// www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/. Accessed on [2012-02-23].

Vitosh M L, Johnson J W, Mengel D B. Tri-State fertilizer

recommendations for corn, soybeans, wheat and alfalfa. Bulletin E-2567, 1995. Available at: http://ohioline.osu. edu/e2567/. Accessed on [2010-10-10].

National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) County Level Data. Available at: http://www.nass.usda.gov/Data_ and_Statistics/. Accessed on [2014-06-11].

Haas M, Peel S, Turco R. Biological, chemical and flow characteristics of five river sampling sites in the Wabash River watershed near Lafayette, Indiana – 2009. Purdue University Research Repository 2014; doi: 10.4231/ R7CC0XM3.

Haas M, Peel S, Turco R. Biological, chemical and flow characteristics of five river sampling sites in the Wabash River watershed near Lafayette, Indiana–2010. Purdue University Research Repository 2014; doi: 10.4231/R77P8W9J.

Haas M, Peel S, Turco R. Biological, chemical and flow characteristics of five river sampling sites in the Wabash River watershed near Lafayette, Indiana – 2011. Purdue University Research Repository 2014; doi: 10.4231/R73X84K6.

Engel B, Storm D, White M, Arnold J, Arabi M. A hydrologic/water quality model application protocol. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 2007; 43(5): 1223–1236.

Moriasi D N, Arnold J G, Van Liew M W, Binger R L, Harmel R D, Veith T. Model evaluation guidelines for systematic quantification of accuracy in watershed simulations. Transactions of the ASABE, 2007; 50(3): 885–900.

Moriasi D N, Gowda P H, Arnold J G, Mulla D J, Ale S, Steiner J L. Modeling the impact of nitrogen fertilizer application and tile drain configuration on nitrate leaching using SWAT. Agricultural Water Management, 2013; 130: 36–43.




Copyright (c)



2023-2026 Copyright IJABE Editing and Publishing Office