Effects of Digital Elevation Models (DEM) Spatial Resolution on Hydrological Simulation

Kavian, Ataollah; Mohammadi, Maziar

doi:10.29252/jwmr.10.19.36

Volume 10, Issue 19 (5-2019) J Watershed Manage Res 2019, 10(19): 36-45 | Back to browse issues page

‎ 10.29252/jwmr.10.19.36

‎ 20.1001.1.22516174.1398.10.19.9.2

Mendeley

Zotero

RefWorks

Kavian A, Mohammadi M. (2019). Effects of Digital Elevation Models (DEM) Spatial Resolution on Hydrological Simulation. J Watershed Manage Res. 10(19), 36-45. doi:10.29252/jwmr.10.19.36
URL: http://jwmr.sanru.ac.ir/article-1-806-en.html

Effects of Digital Elevation Models (DEM) Spatial Resolution on Hydrological Simulation

Ataollah Kavian ^*¹, Maziar Mohammadi²

1- Department of Watershed Management, Faculty of Natural Resources, Sari Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources University, Sari, Iran
2- Watershed Management Sciences and Engineering, Tarbiat Modares University, Noor, Iran

Abstract: (3565 Views)

Digital Elevation Model is one of the most important data for watershed modeling whit hydrological models that it has a significant impact on hydrological processes simulation. Several studies by the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) as useful Tool have indicated that the simulation results of this model is very sensitive to the quality of topographic data. The aim of this study is evaluating the spatial resolution effect of three type's digital elevation model such as ASTER (30 m), SRTM (90 m) and GTOPO30 (1000 m) on the uncertainty of results for flow and total nitrogen simulation. With increasing spatial resolution of 30 to 1,000 m physiographic characteristics such as the number HRU reduced but the average slope and the average minimum and maximum elevation increased. Furthermore, the channel drawing is heavily affected by the spatial resolution of DEM. The Best results of monthly calibration and validation are obtained in Shirgah station for ASTER digital elevation model. R2 and NS coefficient obtained 0.71 and 0.68 for during calibration period and 0.70 and 0.54 during validation period, respectively. Finally, calculated relative error of SRTM and GTOPO30 simulation results compared with ASTER. The results shows that the model overestimated flow and nitrate by increasing spatial resolution 30 to 90m and underestimated these two parameters by increasing spatial resolution 90 to 1000m. The results of this study showed that the accuracy simulation of discharge and total nitrate with the ASTER with the highest spatial resolution presented the best simulation compared to SRTM and GTOPO30 which this is due to the improvement of important physiographic properties, such as slope length and gradient and thus better simulation of hydrological processes.

Keywords: Models Estimation, Simulation, Discharge and Nitrate, Digital Elevation Model

Full-Text [PDF 646 kb] (1372 Downloads)

Type of Study: Research | Subject: حفاظت آب و خاک
Received: 2017/05/14 | Accepted: 2017/11/26

References

1. Arnold, J., J. Kiniry, R. Rinivasan, J. wiliams, E. Haney and S. Neitsch. 2012. Soil and water assessment tool theoretical documentation version 2012. College Station: Texas Water Resources Institute.

2. Arnold, J., R. Srinivasan, R. Muttiah and J. Williams. 1998. Large area hydrologic modeling and assessment part I: Model development1. JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 34(1): 73-89. [DOI:10.1111/j.1752-1688.1998.tb05961.x]

3. Bormann, H. 2008. Sensitivity of a soil-vegetation-atmosphere transfer scheme to input data resolution and data classification. Journal of Hydrology, 138: 154-169. [DOI:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2007.12.011]

4. Chaplot, V. 2005. Impact of DEM mesh size and soil map scale on SWAT runoff, sediment, and NO3CN loads predictions. Journal of Hydrology, 312: 207-222. [DOI:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2005.02.017]

5. Chaubey, I., A. Cotter, T. Costello and T. Soerens. 2005. Effect of DEM data resolution on SWAT output uncertainty. Hydrological Process, 19: 621-628. [DOI:10.1002/hyp.5607]

6. Cibin, R., K.P. Sudheer and I. Chaubey. 2010. Sensitivity and identifiability of stream flow generation parameters of the SWAT model. Hydrological Processes, 24(9): 1133-1148. [DOI:10.1002/hyp.7568]

7. Cotter, A., I. Chaubey, T. Costello, T. Soerens and M. Nelson. 2003. Water quality model output uncertainty as affected by spatial resolution of input data. J. Am. Water Resour Assoc, 39: 977-986. [DOI:10.1111/j.1752-1688.2003.tb04420.x]

8. Dixon, B. and J. Earls. 2009. Resample or not?! Effects of resolution of DEMs in watershed modelling. Hydrological Processes, 23: 1714-1724. [DOI:10.1002/hyp.7306]

9. Jeyrani, F., S. Farid and A. Moridi. 2011. The effect of spatial resolution of digital elevation model on calibration and estimation of runoff and sediment using SWAT-CUP model. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 18(4): 81-102 (In Persian).

10. Li, Z., Q. Shao, Z. Xu and X. Cai. 2010. Analysis of parameter uncertainty in semi-distributed hydrological models using bootstrap method: A case study of SWAT model applied to Yingluoxia watershed in northwest China. Journal of Hydrology, 385: 76-83. [DOI:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2010.01.025]

11. Lin, S., C. Jing, V. Chaplot, X. Yu, Z. Zhang, N. Moore and J. Wu. 2010. Effect of DEM resolution on SWAT outputs of runoff, sediment and nutrients. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 7: 4411-4435. [DOI:10.5194/hessd-7-4411-2010]

12. Moriasi, D., J. Arnold, M. Van Liew, R. Bingner, R. Harmel and T. Veith. 2007. Model Evaluation Guidelines for Systematic Quantification of Accuracy in Watershed Simulations. Transactions of the ASABE, 50(3): 885-900. [DOI:10.13031/2013.23153]

13. Peipei, Z., L. Ruimin, B. Yimeng, W. Jiawei, Y. Wenwen and S. Zhenyao. 2014. Uncertainty of SWAT model at different DEM resolutions in a large mountainous watershed. Water Research, 53(1): 132-144. [DOI:10.1016/j.watres.2014.01.018]

14. Sharma, A., K. Tiwari and P. Bhadoria. 2011. Determining optimum cell size of digital elevation model for hydrologic application. Journal of Earth System Science, 120: 573-582. [DOI:10.1007/s12040-011-0092-3]

15. Shen, Z., L. Chen and T. Chen. 2013. The influence of parameter distribution uncertainty on hydrological and sediment modelling: A case study of SWAT model applied to the Daning watershed of the three Gorges Reservoir Region, China. Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment, 27: 235-251. [DOI:10.1007/s00477-012-0579-8]

16. Sivasena Reddy, A. and M. Janga Reddy. 2015. Evaluating the influence of spatial resolutions of DEM on watershed runoff and sediment yield using SWAT. Indian Academy of Sciences, 124(7): 1517-1529. [DOI:10.1007/s12040-015-0617-2]

17. Thomas, I., P. Jordan, O. Shine, O. Fenton, P. Mellander, P. Dunlop and P. Murphy. 2017. Defining optimal DEM resolutions and point densities for modelling hydrologically sensitive areas in agricultural catchments dominatedby microtopography by microtopography. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation, 54: 38-52. [DOI:10.1016/j.jag.2016.08.012]

18. Williams, J. and H. Berndt. 1977. Sediment yield prediction based on watershed hydrology. Trans. ASAE, 20(6): 1100-1104. [DOI:10.13031/2013.35710]