Model evaluation guidelines for systematic quantification of accuracy in watershed simulations

被引:9272
作者
Moriasi, D. N.
Arnold, J. G.
Van Liew, M. W.
Bingner, R. L.
Harmel, R. D.
Veith, T. L.
机构
[1] USDA ARS, Grazinglands Res Lab, El Reno, OK 73036 USA
[2] USDA ARS, Grassland Soil & Water Res Lab, Temple, TX 76502 USA
[3] Water Qual Planning Bur, Montana Dept Environm Qual, Helena, MT USA
[4] USDA ARS, Watershed Phys Proc Res Unit, Oxford, MS USA
[5] USDA ARS, Pasture Syst & Watershed Management Res Unit, University Pk, PA USA
关键词
accuracy; model calibration and validation; simulation; watershed model;
D O I
10.13031/2013.23153
中图分类号
S2 [农业工程];
学科分类号
0828 ;
摘要
Watershed models are powerful tools for simulating the effect of watershed processes and management on soil and water resources. However, no comprehensive guidance is available to facilitate model evaluation in terms of the accuracy of simulated data compared to measured flow and constituent values. Thus, the objectives of this research were to: (1) determine recommended model evaluation techniques (statistical and graphical), (2) review reported ranges of values and corresponding performance ratings for the recommended statistics, and (3) establish guidelines for model evaluation based on the review results and project-specific considerations; all of these objectives focus on simulation of streamflow and transport of sediment and nutrients. These objectives were achieved with a thorough review of relevant literature on model application and recommended model evaluation methods. Based on this analysis, we recommend that three quantitative statistics, Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE), percent bias (PBIAS), and ratio of the root mean square error to the standard deviation of measured data (RSR), in addition to the graphical techniques, be used in model evaluation. The following model evaluation performance ratings were established for each recommended statistic. In general, model simulation can be judged as satisfactory if NSE > 0.50 and RSR <= 0.70, and if PBIAS +/- 25% for streamflow, PBIAS +/- 55% for sediment, and PBIAS +/- 70% for N and P. For PBIAS, constituent-specific performance ratings were determined based on uncertainty of measured data. Additional considerations related to model evaluation guidelines are also discussed. These considerations include: single-event simulation, quality and quantity of measured data, model calibration procedure, evaluation time step, and project scope and magnitude. A case study illustrating the application of the model evaluation guidelines is also provided.
引用
收藏
页码:885 / 900
页数:16
相关论文
共 58 条
  • [1] Amatya DM, 2004, T ASAE, V47, P677, DOI 10.13031/2013.16100
  • [2] [Anonymous], 1993, J IRRIG DRAIN ENG, V119, P429
  • [3] [Anonymous], 1997, 972209 ASAE
  • [4] Large area hydrologic modeling and assessment - Part 1: Model development
    Arnold, JG
    Srinivasan, R
    Muttiah, RS
    Williams, JR
    [J]. JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION, 1998, 34 (01): : 73 - 89
  • [5] AUTOMATED BASE-FLOW SEPARATION AND RECESSION ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES
    ARNOLD, JG
    ALLEN, PM
    MUTTIAH, R
    BERNHARDT, G
    [J]. GROUND WATER, 1995, 33 (06) : 1010 - 1018
  • [6] Automated methods for estimating baseflow and ground water recharge from streamflow records
    Arnold, JG
    Allen, PM
    [J]. JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION, 1999, 35 (02): : 411 - 424
  • [7] Regional estimation of base flow and groundwater recharge in the Upper Mississippi river basin
    Arnold, JG
    Muttiah, RS
    Srinivasan, R
    Allen, PM
    [J]. JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGY, 2000, 227 (1-4) : 21 - 40
  • [8] Balascio CC, 1998, T ASAE, V41, P615, DOI 10.13031/2013.17229
  • [9] Borah DK, 2004, T ASAE, V47, P789, DOI [10.13031/2013.16110, 10.13031/2013.15644]
  • [10] Toward improved calibration of hydrologic models: Combining the strengths of manual and automatic methods
    Boyle, DP
    Gupta, HV
    Sorooshian, S
    [J]. WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH, 2000, 36 (12) : 3663 - 3674