SWAT For Climate Change Effects

UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA
ST. ANTHONY FALLS LABORATORY

Engineering, Environmental and Geophysical Fluid Dynamics
Project Report No. 409

<
II
< I Sensitivity Analysis of the Soil and Water

Assessment Tool (SWAT) for Simulation
of Climate Change Effects
I
< )
by
Michael P. Hanratty
,I
I
I
Prepared for <
GRAZING LAND RESEARCH LABORATORY

< Agricultural Research Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture <
EI Reno, Oklahoma
In Cooperation with
MID-CONTINENT ECOLOGY DIVISION

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Duluth, Minnesota
December 1997
Minneapolis, Minnesota
1I
·r
c -
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA
ST. ANTHONY FALLS LABORATORY
Engineering, Environmental and Geophysical Fluid Dynamics
Project Report No. 409
" _.
\ ;
Sensitivity Analysis of the Soil and Water

Assessment Tool (SWAT) for Simulation
of Climate Change Effects
by
Michael P. Hanratty
(\ Prepared for
iI
{
GRAZING LAND RESEARCH LABORATORY
I : Agricultural Research Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture
I
\ EI Reno, Oklahoma
In Cooperation with
MID-CONTINENT ECOLOGY DIVISION

I
r
'i
\.,,-.1
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Duluth, Minnesota
r\
December 1997
Minneapolis, Minnesota
The University of Minnesota is committed to the policy that all persons shall have equal access to its
programs, facilities, and employment without regard to race, religion, color, sex, national origin, handicap,
age or veteran status.
Prepared for: USDA, Agricultural Research Service

Last Revised: December 5,1997
Disk Locators: (Zip Disk #6IReportsISensitiv.doc)
"
ABSTRACT
A sensitivity analysis of the input parameters of the Soil and Water Assessment
Tool (SWAT), developed by the USDA Agricultural Research Service, was conducted.
The effects of input parameters describing watershed characteristics and land
management practices on SWAT results were analyzed using individual parameter
11
\.-.1
perturbation. The model outputs were monthly streamflow (mm) and monthly averages
for sediment yield (t/day), total phosphorus yield (kg/day), ammonia/organic N yield
(kg/day), and nitrate/nitrite yield (kg/day). The results were reported qualitatively, not
quantitatively, because of the large number of input parameters required for SWAT.
Streamflow was most sensitive to the SCS runoff curve number, sediment yield to
L, sediment routing parameters, total P and ammonia/organic N yields to land management

practices and to P and N concentrations in the top soil layer, and nitrate/nitrate yield to N
concentrations in the top soil layer. The effects of input parameters describing climate.
conditions were analyzed using error analysis. The climate parameters were monthly
precipitation; monthly averages for maximum, minimum, and mean daily air temperature;
and monthly averages for relative humidity, solar radiation, and wind speed. SWAT was
run using historical weather data and modified historical weather data representing a
doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration. The percent of the variations in the output
variables that were explained by the variations in the climate parameters were calculated.
Variations in precipitation and, when snowmelt was a significant part of the hydrologic
budget, in temper~ture explained the variations in the model output the most.
(\
LJ
i
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author wishes to thank Jeff Arnold and Nancy Sammons of the ARS
Grassland, Soil, and Water Research Laboratory, Temple, TX, and Ranjan Muttiah and R.
Srinivasan of the Blackland Research Center, Texas A&M University, Temple, TX, for
supplying user support and the SWAT and SWAT/GRASS code; Xing Fang of the
Department of Civil Engineering, Lamar University, Beaumont, TX, for writing the
program for extracting the climate change data from the CCC GCM output; and Omid
Mohseni of the St. Anthony Falls Laboratory, Minneapolis, MN, for many helpful
discussions and ideas. This study was funded in part by the Grazingland Research
Laboratory, U.S. Department of Agriculture Agricultural Research Service, EI Reno,
Oklahoma, in cooperation with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Mid-
Continent Ecology Division, Duluth, Minnesota. Robert Williams, Frank Schiebe,
Virginia Snarski, and John Eaton were project officers.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ............... ~ .................................... !II • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • , i

-~
,
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .............".......................... ,.............. ,................................ "...... ii
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................... ,.......... ,.. ,., ............................. iv
LIST OF TABLES ................................. !! • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • " • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • , • • • • • • , • • • • • • • • • • , • • • • • • vi
1. INTROD UCTION ., ....... ".......................... ,............. ,........ ,.................................... !IJ • • • • "." 1
2. MODEL DESCRIPTION ........................ "...... "... !!! •••••• !!! •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 2
r 3. SITE DESCRIPTIONS ...................................................... ,.... ,....................................3
I
4. SENSITIVITY TO WATERSHED PARAMETERS ...............................................5
,I
r 5. INFLUENCE OF CLIMATE PARAMETERS ........................................................ 14

t
6. IMPLICATIONS FOR MODEL CALIBRATION AND APPLICATION ........... 55
7. CONCLUSIONS ................................................................... ,.. !!! •••••••••••••••• e ••••• !!! •••••••••••• 57

r-
.!
1 __ l 8. REFERENCES" ........ "......................................... \1 •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 11 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 58
I
J
iii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Ia Simulated monthly streamflow (mm) vs. monthly climate input parameters
for the Baptism River watershed. The non-linear relationship between the
baseline streamflow simulation and the measured maximum daily
temperature is represented by a gray curve.
Figure Ib Simulated monthly total phosphorus yield (kg/day) vs. monthly climate input
parameters for the Baptism River watershed. The non-linear relationship
between the baseline total P simulation and the measured maximum daily
Figure Ie Simulated monthly ammonia/organic N yield (kg/day) vs. monthly climate

input parameters for the Baptism River watershed.. The non-linear
relationships between the ammonia/organic N simulations and the measured
and projected maximum daily temperatures are represented by gray curves.
Figure Id Simulated monthly sediment yield (t/day) vs. monthly climate input
between the baseline sediment simulation and the measured maximum daily
Figure Ie Simulated monthly nitrate/nitrite yield (kg/day) vs. monthly climate input
parameters for the Baptism River watershed. The non-linear relationships
between the nitrate/nitrite simulations and the measured and projected
maximum daily temperatures are represented by gray curves.
Figure 2a Simulated monthly streamflow vs. monthly climate input parameters for the
Cottonwood River watershed. The non-linear relationship between the
baseline streamflow simulations and the measured maximum daily
temperatures is represented by a gray curve.
Figure 2b Simulated monthly total phosphorus yield vs. monthly climate input
parameters for the Cottonwood River watershed.
Figure 2e Simulated monthly ammonia/organic nitrogen yield vs. monthly climate

input parameters for the Cottonwood River watershed.
IV
r
I
I i
Figure 2d Simulated monthly sediment yield vs. monthly climate input parameters for
the Cottonwood River watershed. The non~linear relationship between the
baseline sediment yield simulations and the measured maximum daily
Figure 2e Simulated monthly nitrate/nitrite yield vs. monthly climate input parameters
for the Cottonwood River watershed. The non~linear relationships between
(_ .•
.the nitrate/nitrite simulations and the measured and projected maximum daily
!i
, I temperatures are represented by gray curves.
f -: Figure 3a Simulated monthly streamflow vs. monthly climate input parameters for the
{ / Little Washita River watershed.
parameters for the Little Washita River watershed.
I!
l. )
Figure 3c Simulated monthly ammonia/organic nitrogen yield vs. monthly climate
input parameters for the Little Washita River watershed.
Figure 3d Simulated monthly sediment yield vs. monthly climate input parameters"for·
the Little Washita River watershed.
for the Little Washita River watershed.
r \
1. . .J\
! !
v
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Comparison of the Baptism, Little Washita, and Cottonwood River

watersheds.
Table 2 Sensitivity analysis of the SWAT simulation of the Little Washita River
watershed. Input parameters are listed that, when changed, produced a change
in output of a smaller magnitude, of the same magnitude, or of a larger
magnitude.
Table 3 Sensitivity analysis pfth(f SWAT simulation of the Baptism River watershed.
Input parameters are listed that, when changed, produced a change in output of
a.smaller magnitude, of the same magnitude, or of a larger magnitude.
Table 4 Sensitivity analysis of the SWAT simulation of the Cottonwood River
watershed. Input parameters are listed that produced a change in SWAT
output of a smaller magnitude, of the same magnitude, or of a larger
magnitude than the change in the parameter.
Table 5 Different permutations ofland use for the Little Washita River watershed used
for sensitivity analysis. The number of subbasins for each land cover type is
listed for four permutations.
Table 6 Analysis of the sensitivity of monthly and mean monthly streamflow to land
use in the Little Washita River watershed. The simulated streamflow for each
of four permutations of land use is compared to the measured streamflow in
the Little Washita River near Ninnekah, OK for the period 1963 to 1979.
Table 7 Sensitivity statistics for the SWAT simulation of the Baptism River
watershed. The square of the Pearson correlation coefficient (r2) is given for
each pair of input and output variables for the baseline and 2xC02 climate
scenarios. If the value is marked with t, then the Nash-Sutcliffe coefficient
(NS) is given. If the value is marked with t, the r2 has been calculated after
removing outliers.
Table 8 Pearson correlation coefficient for the relationships between the monthly
climate parameters for the Baptism River watershed. Precipitation and air
temperature data measured near the watershed. Humidity, solar radiation, and
wind speed were generated by SWAT based on historical monthly means and
the precipitation and temperature data.
VI
(I
/'
I Table 9 Sensitivity statistics for the SWAT simulation of the Cottonwood River
watershed. The square of the Pearson correlation coefficient Cr2) is given for
each pair of input and output variables for the baseline and 2xC0 2 climate
scenarios. If the value is marked with t, then the Nash-Sutcliffe coefficient
(NS) is given.
I I
climate parameters for the Cottonwood River watershed. Precipitation and air
temperature data were measured in the watershed. Humidity, solar radiation,
and wind speed were generated by SWAT based on historical monthly means
and the precipitation and temperature data.
Table 11 Sensitivity statistics for the SWAT simulation of the Little Washita River
watershed. The square of the Pearson correlation coefficient Cl) for each
climate parameter-output variable pair for the baseline and 2xC02
simulations.
f Table 12 Pearson correlation coefficients for the relationships between the monthly
I
\ j climate parameters for the Little Washita River watershed. Precipitation and
air temperature data were measured in the watershed. HumiditY"solar
radiation, and wind speed were generated by SWAT based on historical
monthly means and the precipitation and temperature data.
(i
l;
\ '
vii
(
i
I
1. INTRODUCTION
As part of a research project on the potential effects of climate change on aquatic

ecosystems, a basin scale hydrologic model, the Agricultural Research Service's (ARS)
Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT; Arnold et ai., 1994), was chosen to simulate
the effect of climate change on the non~point source inputs from rural watersheds to lakes
and impoundments (Hanratty, 1995). The goal of this study was to develop methods for
conducting a regional analysis of watershed response to climate change. Therefore, the
l!
model was applied to three different watersheds, the Baptism River near Beaver Bay,
/ MN, the Little Washita River near Ninnekah, OK, and the Cottonwood River near New
I .
) "
Ulm, MN (Hanratty and Stefan, 1997a, b, and c, respectively). These three watersheds
were chosen because they differ substantially in land use and climate conditions and
because their runoff quantity and quality have been recorded. The Baptism River drains a
mostly forested, 352 km2 watershed on the north shore of Lake Superior. The
Cottonwood River, a tributary of the Minnesota River, drains a 3400 km2 agricultural
r· watershed in southwestern Minnesota. At the USGS gauging station just upstream from
I, I
I , Ninnekah, OK, the Little Washita River drains a 538 km2 agricultural watershed. It flows
into the Washita River about 9.5 km downstream of Ninnekah.
When calibrating and interpreting the output of a model, it is very helpful to know
which model parameters are the most influential; i.e., which parameters, when perturbed,
\-, will yield the largest change in the model output. It is also helpful to quantify the impact
of the model parameters. This report describes the sensitivity analysis performed on
,. SWAT when it was applied to three different watersheds. The analysis was performed on
J
two types of input parameters: (1) the parameters that describe the watershed and (2) the
parameters that describe the weather occurring in the watershed. The parameters that
describe the watershed were used to calibrate the model and were used for a qualitative
sensitivity analysis. The large number of parameters required for SWAT made a
quanititative sensitivity analysis of the watershed parameters impractical. The parameters
that describe the weather were used to simulate the change in climate under a projected
2xC02 scenario and were used for a quantitative sensitivity analysis. The SWAT output
variables studied were the monthly and mean monthly streamflow (mmlmonth),
nitrate/nitrite yield (kg/day), total phosphorus yield (kg/day), ammonia/ organic N yield
(kg/day), and sediment yield (t/day).
I I
1
2. MODEL DESCRIPTION
A model of watershed hydrology and water quality, the Soil and Water
Assessment Tool, 1996version (SWAT96, Arnold et at., 1994), was chosen from several
available models (Hanratty, 1995) and modified for application to northern and forested
watersheds (Hanratty and Stefan, 1997a,c). Because SWAT was designed to be applied
to ungauged river basins, it was anticipated that the model could be used for analyzing
many watersheds in a geographic region using readily available data. SWAT is a semi-
empirical, distributed parameter model designed to predict the impact of management
decisions on water, sediment, nutrient, and agricultural chemicals in large, ungauged
basins. SWAT's hydrologic predictions are based on a mass balance of the soil moisture
using up to ten soil layers. It incorporates well-established ARS hydrologic methods
such as the SCS Curve Number method to determine infiltration and runoff and the
Modified Universal Soil Loss Equation (MUSLE) to calculate erosion. Both of these
methods employ variables which the model changes to represent current soil water and
land cover conditions. SWAT uses physically-based methods for. the computation of
percolation, lateral subsurface flow, evapotranspiration, pond and· wetland hydrology,
channel transmission losses, soil nutrient dynamics, soil temperature, crop growth,
pesticide dynamics, and agricultural management practices. The evapotranspiration
algorithm includes the effect of atmospheric CO2 concentration on plant transpiration,
which is important to include in any study of the effects of carbon dioxide-induced
climate change (Hanratty and Stefan, 1997a) and a snow cover factor to account for the
decrease in soil evaporation due to snow cover (Hanratty and Stefan, 1997c). SWAT's
groundwater algorithm is a simplified physically based method (Arnold et al., 1993) and
the snowmelt algorithm is a modified degree-day method (Hanratty and Stefan, 1997a).
SWAT's channel flood routing is based on Manning's equation and channel geometry.
Sediment routing uses particle fall velocity, flow travel time and a sediment delivery
ratio. Nutrient and pesticide routing include chemical transformations within the stream
channels. Weather data (i.e., minimum and maximum daily temperature, daily solar
radiation, mean daily humidity, mean daily wind speed, and daily precipitation) are
required for model input and can be generated using statistical parameters from historical
records. Alternatively, historical temperature and precipitation data can be input directly
to the model. Future versions of SWAT will have the capacity to read in solar radiation
data as well (for more information, see Arnold et al., 1990, 1993, 1994).
Srinivasan and Arnold (1994) have created a geographic information system

(GIS) interface for SWAT called SWAT/GRASS that runs under the GRASS GIS
(CERL, 1988). SWAT/GRASS calculates the SWAT input parameters using GIS maps
of topography, land use/land cover, soil types, and subbasin boundaries and assigns
default values to parameters that cannot be calculated from the GIS data.
2
3. SITE DESCRIPTIONS
Baptism River
The three watersheds are compared in Table 1. The Baptism River watershed is
located approximately 80 km northeast of Duluth, Minnesota on the north shore of Lake
Superior. Most of its 352 km2 is covered by mixed conifer/deciduous forest. The upper
part of the watershed is relatively flat with many forested wetlands and the lower part of
the watershed descends relatively steeply to Lake Superior. The watershed has shallow,
rocky soils, with 2 m or less depth to bedrock over most of its area. The local climate is
cold and wet, with an average annual precipitation of 730 mm, an average annual
temperature of about 2.8°C, and an average annual dew point temperature of -1.2°C. The
average annual streamflow is 449 mm.
(
Little Washita River
Ii The Little Washita River watershed (Allen and Naney, 1991) is located in south-
central Oklahoma between 97.8° W and 98.3° W and between 34.7° Nand 35.0° N. It
was chosen because it is exceptionally well instrumented. The river flows generally from
west to east, with the western portion flowing southeast and the eastern portion flowing
northeast, and drains into the Washita River. The watershed covers 625 km2 and contains
fi
I\ a mix of rangeland (,..,25%), cropland (,..,67%), and forest (,..,6%). The portion of the
I
watershed used for this study, i.e., the portion above the gauging station near Ninnekah,
OK, covers 538 km2 • Most of the area consists of long, rolling hills, with steep banks
surrounding many of the streams. In the western two-thirds, most of the riparian zones
are forested, while in the eastern one-third many are not. The soil tends to be quite rocky,
with bedrock outcroppings in the westernmost, easternmost, and north-central portions,
and sandstone beneath the surface in the central (largest) portion. Alluvial deposits
generally cover the bedrock in the valleys. The soils are deepest (>5 ft. to bedrock) in the
i northeastern portion due to alluvial deposits, in the south-central portion due to flatter
i
! terrain, and in the westernmost portion. From 1969 to 1982, 45 flood-control dams were
installed on the watershed by the V.S. Soil Conservation Service. The watershed is
[I relatively warm and dry, with an annual average precipitation of 728 mm, an average
annual temperature of 16.6°C and an average annual dew point temperature of 7.6°C.
The average annual streamflow is 47 mm.
i
I ,
Cottonwood River
I ' The Cottonwood River basin is located in southwestern Minnesota between 94°
19'W and 96° 3'W and between 43° 53'N and 44° 32'N. The river flows generally from
west to east, with the western portion flowing southeast and the eastern portion flowing
east, and drains into the Minnesota River at New VIm, Minnesota. The watershed covers
3
3400 km2 and contains a mix of rangeland (~52%) and cropland (~46%). The rangeland
is hilly and is located in the southwestern portion of the watershed where the tributaries
all run to the northeast. The cropland is flat and is located in the northeastern portion of
the watershed (Mulla and Mallawatantri, 1997). The surficial aquifers are in glacial till,
ranging from less than 100 to about 400 feet in saturated thickness (Broussard et a/.,
1973). The deeper aquifers are contained in Cretaceous, Cambrian, and Precambrian
deposits. Most of the smaller tributaries have no natural storage and there are only ten
small flood water retention ponds constructed in the entire watershed. The watershed is
relatively cool and not as dry as the Little Washita River watershed, with an annual
average precipitation of 666 mm, an average annual temperature of 6.9°C and an average
annual dew point temperature ofO.7°C. The average annual streamflow is 86 mm.
Table 1 Comparison of the Baptism, Little Washita, and Cottonwood River

watersheds.
Baptism Little Washita Cottonwood
area (km.l) 352 625 3400
average annual 730 728 666

precipitation (mm)
average annual 449 47 86

streamflow (mm)
average annual air 2.8 16.6 6.9

temperature (OC)
average annual dew -1.2 7.6 0.7

point (OC)
land use mixed forest rangeland, rangeland, cropland

cropland, forest
4
4. SENSITIVITY TO WATERSHED PARAMETERS
( The sensitivities of the SWAT output to several input parameters were analyzed
i
I
during calibration. The input parameters describe the watersheds and the land
management practices employed in them. For each watershed, the individual parameters
were perturbed, the model was run using historical weather data, and the results were
compared to previous runs. The parameters that were given default values by
SWAT/GRASS were examined. With the exception of the SCS runoff curve number,
those that were calculated directly from physical features of the watershed were left
unchanged. The relative sensitivity of the model output to the input parameter was
recorded in one of three categories: smaller magnitude, same magnitude, or larger
{
magnitude. All changes were measured relative to the input or output value. The most
! ' influential parameters produced a change in output that was larger than the change in the
input parameter (e.g., a 10% change in input yielded about a 20% or greater change in
output). The least influential parameters produced a change in output that was smaller
than the change in the input parameter (e.g., a 10% change in input yielded a change in
output of about 2% or less). Those in the middle produced a change in output of the same
order of magnitude as the change in the input parameter (e.g., a 10% change in input
yielded a 5-15% change in output).
The sensitivity analysis was performed in two stages. First the parameters that
affect the streamflow and then the parameters that affect the nutrient and sediment yields
were analyzed. Because the flow of water is the main transport mechanism for nutrients
and sediment, the parameters that produce a large magnitude change in streamflow often
produce at least the same magnitude of change ip. nutrient and/or sediment yields. These
parameters, however, were not used to calibrate the simulated nutrient and sediment
yields. The simulated streamflow was calibrated first, then other parameters were used to
i~
calibrate the nutrient and sediment yields. Therefore, the parameters that have a large
I ! effect on streamflow were not included in the sensitivity analysis for nutrient and
! sediment yields. This approach left out some of the variables that have a large influence
on simulated water quality from the water quality columns of Tables 2,3, and 4. Because
I' their influence on water quality was through changes in streamflow, they were only listed
in the streamflow column.
Little Washita River Watershed
For the Little Washita River in Oklahoma, the change in the simulated monthly
I ; streamflow was smaller in magnitude than the change in groundwater delay, groundwater
flow rate (alpha), groundwater (below the root zone) evaporation rate, deep aquifer
recharge, and channel flow Manning's n (Table 2). The change in simulated monthly
5
streamflow was about the same magnitude as the overland flow Manning's n and the
effective hydraulic conductivity of the routing channel and larger in magnitude than the
runoff curve number. Simulated streamflow was very sensitive to the runoff curve
number
Table 2 Sensitivity analysis of the SWAT simulation of the Little Washita River
watershed. Input parameters are listed that, when changed, produced a change
in output of a smaller magnitude, of _the same magnitude, or of a larger
magnitude.
Output Magnitude
Variable Smaller Same Larger
Streamflow egroundwater delay eoverland flow erunoff curve number
egroundwater flow rate Manning's n
egroundwater eeffective hydraulic
evaporation conductivity of
edeep aquifer recharge -routing channel
echannel flow
Manning'sn
Sediment espring plowing echannel bed
emanure spread as echannelbed degradation
fertilizer degradation calibration exponent
eweekly tilling to calibration coefficient
incorporate manure
Nitrate/ espring plowing
Nitrite eeffective mixing rate
for plowing
emanure spread as
fertilizer
emanure incorporated
as fertilizer
Total P eeffective mixing rate espring plowing
for plowing -manure spread as
fertilizer
emanure incorporated
as fertilizer
Ammonia! eeffective mixing rate .spring plowing
Organic N for plowing emanure spread as
fertilizer
emanure, incorporated
-- ... . ... -"
- ~ -,
-as fertilizer
6
because of the primary place that the SCS curve number method has in SWAT's
I. simulation of watershed hydrology. The effective hydraulic conductivity of the routing
I chamlel plays an important role because it determines the rate of water loss through
channel beds, it can vary over a few orders of magnitude, and, in watersheds the size of
II Little Washita or larger, there are many kilometers of channel bed through which water
I
I
can infiltrate into the soil.
r. The water quality simulated by SWAT for the Little Washita River watershed
I ! varied in sensitivity to various watershed parameters and land management practices
(Table 2). Two types of spring plowing were added to the management of the wheat and
hay fields and two different manure management strategies were simulated. Addition of
the manure to the watershed was simulated using two different pathways, (1) application
to wheat, pasture, and hay fields as fertilizer and (2) application to wheat and hay fields
as fertilizer and incorporated into the soil. Each of these application methods was
simulated both with and without a tillage operation before planting in the subbasins
where wheat or hay were the dominant crops. The spring plowing used either a 50%
effective mixing of crop residue and nutrients or a conservation tillage of 25% effective
mixing. The application of manure to fields as fertilizer was simulated by dividing the
annual manure production into 43 equal weekly applications (the months of July and
August were skipped, assuming that growing crops prohibited the manure spreading) and
spreading it on the first soil layer (the first layer is 1 cm thick). For the manure
application that was incorporated into the soil, the equal weekly applications were placed
L on the first soil layer and a weekly tilling operation using a 50% effective mixing rate was
performed. A weekly tilling operation is much more frequent that the usual farming
practice, but was used as an extreme case to examine the effects of high amounts of soil
rl disturbance.
The sensitivity of the simulated water quality to the different manure application
scenarios and input parameters is summarized in Table 2. The simulated yields of
sediment changed very little between the spring plowing and no spring plowing scenarios
(smaller magnitude). The spreading of manure had virtually no effect on sediment yield
(smaller magnitude), but the weekly tilling to incorporate the manure resulted in slightly
higher sediment yields (smaller magnitude). Simulated nitrate yields changed slightly
with the addition of a spring plowing andlor manure to watershed (smaller magnitude).
Nitrate yields were not very sensitive to the manure application and land management
practices because the changes in the amount of nitrate available for transport were much
r
smaller than the average nitrate yields. Since nitrate is water soluble, SWAT's
L
simulations of nitrate yields involved both surface and sub-surface transport processes.
Therefore, nitrate yields were not very sensitive to management practices performed on
the surface of the land. Sediment yields, on the other hand, were sensitive to land
management practices when the surface of the soil was disturbed often, as in the weekly
tilling to incorporate manure into the soil. Simulated sediment yields also changed by the
same magnitude as the channel bed degradation calibration coefficient and at a larger
magnitude than the channel bed degradation calibration exponent.
7
Phosphorus and ammonia/organic N yields varied significantly between the land
and manure management scenarios (Table 2). Simulated phosphorus and ammonia/
organic N yields changed dramatically when manure was spread on the surface, when a
spring plowing was added, and when manure was incorporated by tilling on a weekly
basis (larger magnitude). The changes in simulated phosphorus and ammonia/organic N,
however, were smaller in magnitude than a change in the depth of the spring plowing
from an effective mixing rate of 50% (standard spring plowing) to a mixing rate of 25%
(conservation tillage). Phosphorus and ammonia/organic N yields were sensitive to
manure and larid management practices because the movements of these two non-soluble,
particle-associated nutrients were due to surface processes. Therefore, the amount of
phosphorus and ammonia/organic N in the surface layer and the amount of runoff from
the soil surface had a large influence on their yields.
Baptism River Watershed
Since Minnesota' $ Baptism River watershed is almost entirely covered by forest,

the evapotranspiration (ET) of the trees has a significant impact on the streamflow at the
watershed outlet. Tree ET, in turn, is affected by the maximum leaf area index of the
forest and by the nutrient levels in the soils. Therefore, simulated streamflow changed at
a larger magnitude than the change in maximum leaf area index and at the same
magnitude as the change in initial organic phosphorus concentrations in the top soil layer
(Table 3). Organic P levels in the soil affected streamflow by limiting the growth of the
forest. The default values for initial organic P concentrations in the top soil layer are
calculated in SWAT as a fraction of the initial organic N concentrations, so changes in
the initial organic N concentration can change the initial organic P concentration.
Therefore, even though phosphorus was the limiting nutrient for this simulated forest,
when no value was specified for initial organic P in the top soil layer, streamflow also
changed at the same magnitude as the change in the initial organic N concentration.
Simulated streamflow was also very sensitive (larger magnitude) to the

temperature used to determine snowmelt. When the average daily air temperature was
used, the peak of monthly streamflow in the spring was a month late. When the
maximum daily air temperature was used, the peak occurred in the correct month.
Although simulated streamflow changed at a smaller magnitude than the groundwater
parameters (flow rate; delay, specific yield, evaporation coefficient, and deep aquifer
recharge coefficient),. they were important for calibrating streamflow for the Baptism
River simulation. Some of the parameters were changed two or three orders of
magnitude from the default values in order to represent the very shallow surficial aquifer
in the Baptism River watershed.
Finally, simulated monthly streamflow changed at a smaller magnitude than the

runoff curve number and the snow evaporation coefficient. The short amount of time
required for percolation of water from the root zone into the surficial aquifer (0.2 days)
allowed the surface and sub-surface flow to arrive at the basin outlet within the same
8
I
Table 3 Sensitivity analysis of the SWAT simulation of the Baptism River watershed.
Input parameters are listed that, when changed, produced a change in output of a
smaller magnitude, of the same magnitude, or of a larger magnitude.
Output Magnitude
Variable -Smaller Same Larger
Streamflow egroundwater delay einitial organic P in top soil emaximum leaf
( egroundwater flow rate layer area index
I egroundwater einitial organic N in top soil esnowmelt
evaporation layer temperature
edeep aquifer recharge
eaquifer specific yield
erunoff curve number
r: esnow evaporation
coefficient
I-
Sediment erouting channel erodibility echannelbed
i
i.
erouting channel MUSLE degradation .
cover factor calibration
enormal sediment exponent ..
concentrations in ponds,
wetlands, and groundwater
return flow
echannel bed degradation
calibration coefficient
Nitrate/ einitial organic N in top soil
Nitrite layer
Total P erouting channel einitial organic P in top soil
erodibility layer
erouting channel eInitial organic N in top soil
MUSLE cover factor layer
-normal sediment
concentrations in
ponds, wetlands, and
groundwater return
flow
l r
echannel bed
degradation
calibration coefficient
Ammonia! einitial organic N in top soil
[J
Organic N layer
I '
9
month, which minimized the importance of the runoff curve number. The potential
evaporation of snow was so small (due to temperatures well below O°C) that the snow
evaporation coefficient had little effect on the amount of accumulated snow and the
resulting snowmelt.
Simulated sediment yield changed at the same magnitude as the change in the
routing channel erodibility, the routing channel MUSLE cover factors, and the normal
sediment concentrations in the ponds, wetlands, and groundwater return flow (Table 3).
In the Baptism River watershed, the forest floor is subject to relatively small amounts of
surface erosion, so these constants that determine in-stream and in-lake suspended
sediment concentrations were the primary determinants of sediment yield.
Most of the phosphorus in the Baptism River was transported as sediment-

associated particles. Therefore, phosphorus yields exhibited low sensitivity (smaller
magnitude) to the sediment yield parameters (Table 3). In addition, phosphorus yields
changed at the same magnitude as the initial concentration of organic P in the soil and,
when no value was specified for initial organic P, at the same magnitude as the initial
concentration of organic N. Similarly, ammonia/organic N and nitrate/nitrite yield
changed at the same magnitude as the-initial organic N concentration in the top 1 cm of
soil.
Cottonwood River Watershed
The simulated hydrology of the Cottonwood River watershed in Minnesota was

dominated by surface runoff. Simulated streamflow changed at a larger magnitude than
the change in the SCS runoff curve number (Table 4). Simulated streamflow was also
sensitive to the temperature used to determine snowmelt (larger magnitude). When the
maximum daily air temperature was used, the peak of monthly streamflow in the spring
was a month early. When the average daily air temperature was used, the peak occurred
in the correct month.
A change in the saturated conductivity of the soil produced a stnaller magnitude

change in streamflow. A change in the snow evaporation coefficient produced the same
magnitude of change in the spring peak for monthly streamflow by increasing the amount
of accumulated snow during the winter. A change in Manning's n for overland flow in
the rangeland subbasins also produced a smaller magnitude of change in simulated
streamflow.
The sensitivities of nutrient and sediment yields to various parameters are

summarized in Table 4. Simulated sediment yields changed at the same magnitude as the
channel bed degradation calibrat~on coefficient and at a larger magnitude than the channel
bed degradation calibration exponent. Total phosphorus yields changed at the same
magnitude as the initial organic phosphorus concentration in the top soil layer, and, when
the initial organic P concentration was not input, at the same magnitude as the initial
organic N concentration in the top soil layer. Ammonia/organic N yields also changed at
10
the same magnitude as the initial organic N concentration in the top soil layer. Like the
Little Washita River watershed, the addition of a spring plowing produced a large
magnitude change in total P and ammonia/organic N yields, but a change in the rate of
effective mixing from 50% to 25% produced a smaller magnitude change. Total P and
ammonia/organic N yields were also changed at a smaller magnitude than a change in the
rate of fertilization with a standard 28-10-10 (percent content of N, PzOs, and K20,
respectively) fertilizer. Like the Little Washita River watershed, total P and
ammonia/organic N yields in the Cottonwood River watershed were controlled primarily
by surficial processes.
Table 4 Sensitivity analysis of the SWAT simulation of the Cottonwood River

watershed. Input parameters are listed that produced a change in SWAT output
of a smaller magnitude, of the same magnitude, or of a larger magnitude than
the change in the parameter.
Output Magnitude
Variable Smaller Same Larger
(i
Streamflow esoil saturated esnow evaporation erunoff curve number
LJ conductivity coefficient esnowmelt temperature
,-,
eoverland flow
I;
t .. '
Sediment
Manning'sn
espring plowing echannel bed echannelbed
eeffective mixing rate degradation calibration degradation calibration
for plowing coefficient exponent
Nitrate/ espring plowing e28-1 0-1 0 fertilizer
Nitrite eeffective mixing rate
for plowing
eInitial organic N in
top soil layer
Total P eeffective mixing rate einitial organic P in top espring plowing
for plowing soil layer
e28-1 0-1 0 fertilizer einitial organic N in top
soil layer
Ammonia! eeffective mixing rate einitial organic N in top .spring plowing
OrganicN for plowing soil layer
e28-10-10 fertilizer
Because the simulated hydrology was primarily driven by surface runoff, the
nitrate/nitrite yields in the Cottonwood were also controlled primarily by surficial
I '
processes, but not in the same way as total P and ammonia/organic N yields.
Nitrate/nitrite yields changed at a smaller magnitude than the initial organic N
I I concentration in the top soil layer and the addition of a spring plowing produced a small
11
) \
magnitude change in nitrate/nitrite yield (Table 4). Nitrate/nitrite yields also changed at a
smaller magnitude than the date of spring planting; i.e., there were no discernible changes
in yield when the date of spring planting was changed to an earlier date. Nitrate/nitrite
yields were, however, sensitive to fertilizing 'operations. They changed at the same
magnitude as the rate of fertilization with a standard 28-10-10 fertilizer when the fertilizer
was added on a specific date or was added when the crops were stressed by the lack of
nitrogen.
Sensitivity to Land Use/Land Cover
The land use/land cover data used to def1ne the input for simulating the Little
Washita River and Cottonwood River watersheds did not include information on the
crops grown in the watersheds.' Therefore, the donrinant crops grown were determined
from u.s. Census data and randomly distributed over the cropland in the watershed. In
order to determine the variation in streamflow between different, random permutations of
the dominant crops in the Little Washita River watershed, a sensitivity analysis was
performed. F our different permutations were examined. F or the first three, the cells in
the GIS land use/land cover map of the Little Washita River watershed that contained
cropland. were randomly assigned to spring wheat, hay, or pasture in equal numbers.
SWAT/GRASS was then run to determine the dominant crop for each of the watershed's
55 subbasins. The fourth permutation was determined by assigning directly to each
subbasin a dominant crop, so that the number of subbasins with each dominant crop was
equal. The number of subbasins assigned to each dominant crop is given in Table 5 for
each of the four land use permutations.
Table 5 Different permutations of land use for the Little Washita River watershed used
for sensitivity analysis. The number of subbasins for each land cover type is
listed for four permutations.
Land Use Permutation
Land Cover/Croll 1 2 3 4
Spring Wheat 15 4 9 10
Hay 6 7 19 10
Pasture 9 19 2 10
Rangeland 25 25, 25 25
SWAT/GRASS was used to calculate the input parameters for each of the four
land use permutations and then the runoff curve numbers were decreased by 20% from
the values calculated by SWAT/GRASS. The simulations were compared to the
measured streamflow and the resulting standard errors (SE) and Nash-Sutcliffe
coefficients (NS) were calculated (Table 6). The type and distribution of crops in the
watershed had a definite impact on the simulated streamflow. The standard 'errors ranged
from 1.20 mm to 5.99 mm and the Nash-Sutcliffe coefficients from 0.72 to -0.54.
12
Table 6 Analysis of the sensitivity of monthly and mean monthly streamflow to land use
I "! in the Little Washita River watershed. The simulated streamflow for each of
I four permutations of land use is compared to the measured streamflow in the
Little Washita River near Ninnekah, OK for the period 1963 to 1979.
Land Use Permutations

1 2 3 4
I I
Mean SE(mm) 1.20 2.15 1.77 1.47
I .
I I
Monthly NS 0.72 0.12 0040 0.59
1- Monthly SE(nun) 3.56 5.99 3.16 3.01

NS 0.46 ~O.54 0.57 0.61
I
I I
\
, -
j 1
\'
I I
13
,
i!
5. INFLUENCE OF CLIMATE PARAMETERS
In contrast to the individual parameter perturbation method used for the SWAT
watershed parameters, an error analysis approach was used to study the sensitivity of
SWAT's output to various climate parameters (Bartell et ai., 1986; Gardner et ai., 1981).
Error analysis improves the accuracy of the ranking of the most influential input
parameters to non-linear systems by examining the relationship between input parameters
and output variables in the context of the natural ranges, variations, and correlation
structure of the input parameters. Typically, large sets of field data to be used as input
parameters are not available for error analysis. Therefore, the variation and correlation
structure of input parameters are generated artificially and then Monte Carlo iterations of
a model are run to determine the relationship between the variation of the input and
output parameters (McKay, 1988).
There were, however, long records of precipitation and air temperature for each of
the three watersheds in this study. These climate data already contained the natural
variation and correlation structure. Therefore, about twenty years (240 months) of daily
precipitation, maximum daily air temperature, and minimum daily air temperature data
from the period 1960-1979 were used as input to the model for the Baptism, Cottonwood,
and Little Washita River watersheds. Furthermore, SWAT generated humidity, solar
radiation, and wind speed data from historical monthly means, the precipitation data, and
the air temperature data. These generated weather input parameters were used for error
analysis as well.
The historical climate data, however, did not include the ranges that would be
expected under a 2xC02 climate change scenario. Therefore, SWAT was also run with
the weather parameters expected after a doubling of atmospheric CO2 , These were
obtained by applying monthly increments to the historical climate data. The monthly
climate increments were obtained from the output of a Global Circulation Model (GCM),
the second generation of the Canadian Climate Center model (CCC; Boer et al., 1992;
McFarlane et al., 1992).
When measuring sensitivity, the slopes of the relationships between the input
parameters and the output variables are typically used. For this study, linear regressions
were calculated between·the simulation outputs and each of the climate input parameters.
The outputs examined were the monthly streamflow (mm/month) and the monthly means
for total P (kg/day), ammonia! organic N (kg/day), sediment (tlday), and nitrate/nitrite
yields (kg/day) for both the historical conditions and the 2xC02 climate scenario. The
coefficients of determination (CoD) were then calculated using Equation 1. This statistic,
14
typically referred to as r2, provides the strength, or goodness offit, of a linear relationship
I I between the input parameters and the output variables (McCuen and Snyder, 1986).
I
,
I '
CoD=l-
I (obs - pred)2
2 (1)
I(obs - obs)
When the relationship between an input parameter and an output variable was
shown to be clearly non-linear by a scatter plot of the output variable vs. the input
parameter, a non-linear curve was fit to the data. The moving average of the output
variable, with a period of 20 data points, was used as the curve that describes the non-
linear relationship between the input parameter and the output variable. The coefficient
of determination (Equation 1) was then calculated. The advantage of using the moving
r
I
average to represent the non-linear relationship between an input parameter and an output
variable was that the coefficient of determination would be bounded by 0 and 1. That is,
the residual between the moving average and the data (the numerator in Equation 1)
r- would always be less than or equal to the distance between the data and the mean of the
l
data (the denominator in Equation 1). Since the coefficient of determination is also
bound by 0 and 1 for its typical application to a linear regression, the application of the
coefficient of determination to the moving average provides a meaningful comparison
between the strengths of the linear and non-linear relationships.
The climate parameters that were most influential in determining the response of
the simulated watershed, then, were those that had the highest coefficient of
determination (CoD). There are conditions under which a high CoD over-estimates the
influence of an input parameter, such as when an output variable changes very little. In
that case, a linear regression between the output variable and an input parameter would
yield a nearly horizontal line with a high CoD. There are also conditions under which the
CoD may under-estimate the influence of a parameter, such as when an output variable
changes a lot in response to a small change in an input parameter, but there is a high
[I amount of scatter in the data. To avoid misinterpreting the CoD, therefore, all of the
relationships between the climate input parameters and the output variables were graphed
as two dimensional scatter plots. Simulations of monthly streamflow (mm/month) and of
the monthly means for total P (kg/day), ammonia/organic N (kg/day), sediment (t/day),
and nitrate/nitrite yields (kg/day) were plotted against monthly precipitation (mmlmonth),
the monthly means for minimum, maximum, and average daily air temperature (OC), and
the monthly means for relative humidity (dimensionless), solar radiation (langleys/day),
and wind speed (m/sec). There were none of the above inaccuracies in ranking the
influence of input parameters in this analysis.
r
L
Finally, the correlations between the input parameters were calculated for both the
baseline climate (historical conditions) and the 2xC02 climate scenario and included in
this report in order to provide a more complete description of the climate parameters.
I I
15
Baptism River
Overall, the streamflow and water quality in the Baptism River watershed were
most influenced by precipitation and air temperature. In the baseline simulation, non-
linear relationships with temperature dominated the variation of the model output because
SWAT uses air temperature to calculate snowmelt. In the 2xC02 simulation, snow
accumulation was decreased and snowmelt was spread out over more months than in the
baseline simulation. Therefore, linear relationships with rainfall and, to a lesser extent,
non-linear relationships with temperature were the best predictors of variation in the
simulated streamflow and water quality.
Table 7 SeJ,lsitivity statistics for the SWAT simulation of the Baptism River watershed.
The coefficient of determination (CoD) is given for each pair of input and
output vari~bles for the baseline and 2xC02 clim!lte scenarios. If the value is
marked with ii', then a non-linear relationship was used to calculate the CoD. If
the value is marked with $, the CoD has been calculated after removing outliers.
Scenario Parameter Streamflow TotalP NH3/0rgN Sediment N'031N02
Baseline' Precip 0.16 .0.05 0.20 0.10 0.01
Max Temp 0.34ii' 0.15t 0.10ii' 0.23t 0.23t
Min Temp, 0.07 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.01
Mean Temp 0.07 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.01
Humidity 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.08
SolarRad 0.08 0.05 0.02 0.07 0.04
Wind Speed 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.04
Soil Water 0.09 0.08 0.04 0.10 0.07
2xC02 Precip 0.38$ 0.20 0.24 0.36$ 0.02$

Max Temp 0.01$ 0.00 0.08ii' 0.01$ 0.11$, 0.18t
Min Temp 0.02$ 0.00 0.01 0.01$ 0.12$
Mean Temp 0.01$ 0.00 0.01 0.01$ 0.11$
Humidity 0.00$ 0.00 0.00 0.00$ 0.01$
SolarRad O.Olg 0.01 0.01 0.01$ 0.00$
Wind Speed 0.00$ 0.00 0.00 0.00$ 0.02$
Soil Water 0.01$ 0.02 0.01 0.05$ O.09~
The sensitivity statistics comparing the monthly climate data to the monthly
SWAT output for the Baptism River watershed are shown in Table 7 and the correlations
between parameters . are shown in Table 8. Linear relationships between the climate
parameter~ and streamflow in the Baptism River yielded coefficients of determination
(CoD) of only 0.0 to 0.18. Therefore, the graphical comparisons between the climate
parameters and the streamflow (Fig. 1a) were examined for possible non-linear
16
relationships. The graph of streamflow vs. maximum daily air temperature showed a
I , definite non-linear relationship between the two, with streamflow increasing with
I '
I i temperature below about 10°C and decreasing with temperature above about 10°C. The
moving average of the monthly streamflow data was used to define the non-linear
r ~-,
relationship and the CoD was calculated to be 0.34. The spring snowmelt created most of
I the variation in streamflow in the Baptism River in the baseline simulation. The change
in monthly streamflow with respect to the monthly average of the maximum daily
temperature, as represented by the absolute value of the slope of the non-linear curve, was
highest in the range fTOm about 5°C to 12°C (Fig. la).
[ I
In the 2xC02 simulation, however, precipitation was the most influential climate
parameter (Table 7). When the two most extreme events were not included in the
calculation, the CoD was 0.38. The projected increase in temperature under the 2xC02
conditions decreased the amount of snow accumulation and spread out the snowmelt over
more months, so precipitation became a more important predictor than temperature.
climate parameters for the Baptism River watershed. Precipitation andah
temperature data measured near the watershed. Humidity, solar radiation, and
wind speed were generated by SWAT based on historical monthly means and
the precipitation and temperature data.
Scenario Parameter Max Min Mean Humidity Solar Wind
Temp Temp Temp Radiation Speed
Baseline Rainfall 0.55 0.56 0.56 0.09 0.23 -0.11
Max Temp 0.99 1.00 0.09 0.46 -0.17
Min Temp 1.00 0.12 0.37 -0.16
Mean Temp 0.10 0.42 -0.16
Humidity -0.18 -0.08
Solar Rad -0.04
2xC02 Rainfall 0.47 0.48 0.48 0.04 0.37 -0.20

Max Temp 0.99 1.00 0.03 0.53 -0.38
Min Temp 1.00 0.05 0.45 -0.37
Mean Temp 0.04 0.49 -0.37
Solar Rad -0.10
f i
U
The relationships between the monthly climate parameters and the SWAT
simulations of monthly total P (Fig. 1b) and sediment (Fig. 1d) were very similar to the
relatioriships between the climate parameters and streamflow (Table 7). Air temperature
was the strongest predictor for total P and sediment in the baseline simulation with CoDs
of 0.15 and 0.23, respectively, calculated using a non-linear relationship with maximum
17
daily temperature. Precipitation was the strongest predictor for total P and sediment in
the 2xC02 simulation. The relationship between total P and precipitation yielded a CoD
of 0.20 and, when two extreme events were removed, the CoD for the influence of
precipitation on sediment yield was 0.36.
For ammonia/organic N yields (Fig. Ic), precipitCl;tion was the most influential
parameter for both the baseline and the 2xC02 simulations: 0.20 and 0.24 CoDs,
respectively, using a linear relationship (Table 7). Air temperature had a smaller, non-
linear influence. The CoDs were 0.10 and 0.08 for the non-linear relationship between
maximum daily temperature and ammonia/organic N in the baseline and 2xC02
simulations, respectively.
Nitrate/nitrite yields (Fig. Ie), on the other hand, were most influenced by
temperature. The non-linear relationship between nitrate/nitrite yields and maximum
daily temperature in the baseline simulation yielded a CoD of 0.23. In the 2xC02
simulation, the relationship with temperature was weaker. When the two most extreme
events were omitted, the CoDs were 0.11 and 0.18, respectively, for a linear and non-
linear relationship with maximum daily temperature (Table 7).
18
i-
I Baseline 2xC02
180 600
160 •• •• •
• 500
~
140
~
10:
1~0 • 10:
400
100 E
~ • 300
80
• C!I
I!!
i'i)
60
40 •
~o ~
·..
•• ...
I!!
U>
~OO
100
:.6..t. ,~..1I..L~.~::."'~
...• ':
0
0 50 100 150 ~OO ~50 300 350 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Precip. Precip.
ri
I
I
180 600
160 I••• 500
•
~
140
~
1- 120
10: 100
E
10:
E
400
300
•
ftI 80 C!I
...
I!! 80 ...
I!! 200
U> 40
20
0
U) 100
0
._.... ii• ·
It. .... j~ :.... •t!t.~~.
·20 ·10 0 10 20 30 ·10 0 10 20 30 40
Max Temp Max Temp
180 600
160 •••
!it
•
"" 500
~
140
120
10: 100
." .g 400
E 80 E 300
C!I C!I
...
I!! 60 ...
I!! 200
U) 40
20
••
U) 100
0 •
~u..;.... ~:.,,: .., .....• . ~- .
.30 .20 -10 0 10 ~o .20 .10 0 10 20
Min Temp Min Temp
180 600
••
~
160
140
120
10: 100
E •
""
" .• •
~
o
10:
E
500
400
300
"
•
ftI 80
......
\II
...
I!! 60
U) 40
•• ...
I!
U) 100
200
•
• •~..+tI ".L.t.·
20 ~ . ........Iff
•• 0
-20 ·10 0 10 20 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
Ave Temp Ave Temp
Figure la Simulated monthly streamflow (mm) vs. monthly climate input parameters
for the Baptism River watershed. The non-linear relationship between the
[-I baseline streamflow simulation and the measured maximum daily
lJ
I I
19
180 600
160 . • •• •
140. • 500
~ 120 • • ~ 400
;;:: 100. • • ;;:: •
E 80. 0 0 0- E 300
• • 0
....~
0 ftI
....e 200
60 0
U) 40. U)
100
•
• • • +• • , .
20.
..A*.:.~!a.A~. q, 0 '.it! ~·I
a 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.2
Relative Humidity Relative Humidity
180 600
160. • •••• 0
500
0
~
140.
o· ~
. ....
120 400
;;:: 100. : 0 \
;;:: •
E o ~ E 300
ftI 80. • ftI
e
u;
60.
40 0
0 • +oe;............
.... +. ' •••
....e 200 o.
100 0
20.
O.
of .fi ·
U)
~,-~ • ·~sk .~!oo "J.1.
200 400 600 800 100 200 ~oo 400 500 600 700
Solar Radiation Solar Radiation
180 600
160.
140
• • •• • 500
•
~ 120 •• ~ 400
•
;;::
E 100 • ;;::
E 300
ftI 80 ftI
....e 60 0
....e 200
U) 40.
20
U) 100 • • .1..o •~.... .o_0•..f1_tw.'_:.
...
0 • •
4 6 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
Wind Speed Wind Speed
Figure la (Cont'd.) Simulated monthly streamflow (mm) vs. monthly climate input
between the baseline streamflow simulation and the measured maximum
daily temperature is represented by a gray curve.
20
Baseline 2xC02
80 100
70
60 .
• 90
80
70
• II.. 60
S 40 •• •• •
II.. 60
S
. .. .'. -
60
f o 30 • • 0 40
I- 30 • •
I- 20 • ••
-..
•• •
l 10 .
0
•.r..•..
:~\;:t •
20
10 .~
0
•... .:. .....;~
• : ........ I ••• \ Lfo_
60 100 150 200 250 300 350 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Precip . Precip.
80 100
70 90 •
60 • 80
•
70 •
r' II.. 60
•
• II.. 60
•
~
]i 40 50
•• •• • •
!
• ..t' ·
o 3D 40
•
: .... : ••
I- 20 30
10 \ •• 20
10
0 ,~_u S:t' • ~ o#~/.•
·20 -10 0 10 20 30 -10 0 10 20 30 40

Max Temp Max Temp
[-, 80
70 •
100
90 •
.60 • 80
•
II.. 50 • •
70
II.. 60 •
]i 40 • ]j 50
••• ••
l:
o 30
I- 20
10 . :...... ,:'.., ·:~~
~.
• ~. •
..:. ......
0 40
I- 30
20
10
0
•
•
• .
!..oM. ...... _.
•
"'. ..,~.. '+.+. . ••
L ..... : •
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 -20 .10 0 10 20

Min Temp Min Temp
80 100
70 •
•
90
80
•
60
70
II.. 50
• • II.. 60
•
S 40 •• • • • ]j 50
[-. !
- I
~ 30
20
10 ••.~. -'
•
~\ .. :. .. \
'.! .•~':t.Jt!•..sJ.t.
0 40
I- 30
20
10
0
•
. ••.....
- ......•• .-. ! .-~·~·m
•
-20 -10 0 10 20 -20 -10 0 10 20 30

Ave Temp Ave Temp
Figure Ib Simulated monthly total phosphorus yield (kg/day) vs. monthly climate input
[! between the baseline total P simulation and the measured maximum daily
[J
r:
II
I '
21
80 100
70 • 90
80
a.
60
70
a. 60
• •
50 • •
19 40 •• • ~ 50
•
• •
.. .. ...••....... :..... .... .. J! •·~
40
~ ~~
.. ...,
t- 30
• ••
10 • • 20
• • . • • • • ••~
0
~ 10
0 !\:~ .A ~1.
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.2
80 100
70 • 90
60 • 80
a. 70 ••
.
a. 50 • • 60
19 to·
~
40 50
• • •
..... . ..:. ••
•• 40
~ 30 30 •••
,.£.,~ t·•...:.
..
20
10
o.
••• •
• ...t.t.. ~Ydh
20
10
0
• .:: ."L
• ....
0 200 400 600 800 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
80 100
70 • 90 •
60 • 80
•
a. • • a. 70 •
50
•
...
60
19 40 •••• 19 50
•
• • •
~ ~~
40
~
10
a
.• ~..
... t ..i':,;,a..~...
:; •... • ~ •
30
20
10
a
•
• • ••
",. ;
.... ..1:.1.. :t·:t..~.: .....
a 4 6 10 4 6 10
Figure Ib (Cont'd.) Simulated monthly total phosphorus yield (kg/day) vs. monthly
climate input parameters for the Baptism River watershed. The non-linear
relationship between the baseline total P simulation and the measured
maximum daily temperature is represented by a gray curve.
22
Baseline 2xC02
250.,-_ _ _ _ _ _----..--_ _ _ _ _-, 350,-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _- ,
"
I Z 200
Z
300
250 • ••
e' 150
• 21200
['
~....
Z
100
50 ••
. t··.. .• ~. •. · •
~
Z
150
100.
50 • ••
•
•
4ft. ••
••
•••...
I ~.: .,~....: . • ••
o It .. .M~ ~tt.t •.t +t• • • •
o I_.&..Z.. • •
o ~ 100 1~ GO 250 300 o 50 100 150 200 250 300
I i
Precip.
250 , - - - - - - , - - - - - - - ; - - - ,
Preclp.
350 . - _ - - ,_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _- -__- ,
300 •• •
Z •
[I
200
• Z 250
21150
o • • 21200
•
~
M
~
100
50 .. •
~~. ~.
:E:
Z
150
100 •
..+
t •
50 ~. . . . .
r
I :
o L- __..--..J-~t:
.20
........ ~~~·,··~~a.J
.10 0 10
,~
20 30
o ~~·~~. .
·10 o
·=~,.jfrl~.dI~~·c.---~
10 20 30 40
Max Temp Max Temp
250.-----_---.--;-_--, 350.-_ _ _ _ _ _. , - - - _ -_ _- ,
300 •••
Z 200
21150
• Z 250
21200
~ 100 ~ 150
•
• • •
~ 50
~ 100
50
.20 ·10 0 10 20 ·10 0 10 20
[j Min Temp Min Temp
2 5 0 r - - - - - - - , - - - -_ _r-_ 350 .--------,r-----------,

300
[\ Z 200
21150
•
• •
Z 250
21 200
•• •
•
~ 100 ~ 150
X •t~ ••••• ~.
• X • .+
rJ
Z 50
·20
'~ ... o
•
: ·... t .• .:~-~· • J '
10 20
Z 100
50
O~-. .~
·10
" ·.M
...
__
·t: ". "n
~L~~~~.~~~~~h~~
o 10
• ••••••
. .~~~~
20 30
Ave Temp Ave Temp
Figure Ie Simulated monthly ammonia/organic N yield (kg/day) vs. monthly climate

input parameters for the Baptism River watershed. The non~linear
)
[I
I I
23
250,-________________________r - - , 350 ,.-___________________________,
300
•
. •
Z 200
Z 250
~ 150
• ~ 200
~
o ~ •
;;; 100
:r:
Z 50 . +...• •
• +.: ..........J.....\...
. . ...
.... ..!"
~
~
$i
150
100
50
.....•:.
•
:to •• \to
L • :..
•••• • •
•
-.. · ...... ~
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.2
350 ,.-__________________________- ,
250 ..-__________--.~------------_,
300
Z 200
Z ••
~ 150
• ~
250
o • • ~
200
•
. . ......
;;; 100 150
:r: $i 100 •• ••
Z •• + • • .. : :••• + •
• ••
.,u;..~•• •••
50
50
• ..t. .f.... +..:. :.
~. ~:.&. ..i. •
200 400 600 800 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
350,.-__________________________- ,
250
300 •
Z 200
Z 250 • ••
~ 150
• ~
• • 200
•
0
;;; 100 ~ 150
:r:
Z 50
o
• Ie
;: t.1.. tk •• • ...
•.~'" •,.
'.
•
10
::J:
Z 100.
50 +.' ....~
•
•
.~ ~...a:..r _4!t.+1"••
.A.
o~~~~~.w~~~-·~
o
••
••
4
• •
6
__ --~
10
2 4 6
Figure Ie (Cont'd.) Simulated monthly ammonia/organic N yield (kg/day) vs. monthly

24
fl
II
r
I
I
Baseline 2xC02
~o 35
•• •
...c
ill
25
20
... • 1:
30 .
25
•
~0>
15
• ••• :s
~ 2P
16 • .. •••
....... +• •
l II)
10
0 •
••••
•
•
•
8l 10
.•• . •..... -. It·..••• . • •
y~4t.~
,: 0 50 100 150
Preclp.
200 260 300 350 50 100
Preclp.
150 200 260 300
II
...
30
25 ·•. •
.' ...c
35
3P
15
•
C 10
0> III 10
E 16 • E •
:c0> 10
:c0> 15
•••
•
II)
• •• II) 10
• Ii
0
• •
.20 .10 20 30 ·10 10 20 30 40
Max Temp
[I ...c
30
25 ••••
•• • 1:
35
30
25
•
20
0>
• ~ •
I-I
l -'!
E
:c0>
II)
15
10
...... -'...,.....1t. .,'10.'~ ..' . :c
8l
20
15
10
• •
-'.
.'• .• ••
••
~~
........ ~4l'•.' . " . 0
·30 .20 ·10 0 10 20 .20 ·10 0 10 20
Min Temp Min Temp
30 35
•• • 30
...i 25
20 • • 1: 25
~ 20 •
E
:c0>
15
10
"
.. , .:.i. .•j.~ ..
,
~., ~
. V··: .'
• • :c0>15
II) 10
•
_u·....
II)
.,
[j .20 ·10
\.
0
•••• I,
10 20
5
0
-20 ·10 0 10 20 30
Ave Temp Ave Temp
Figure ld Simulated monthly sediment yield (t/day) vs. monthly climate input
j parameters for the Baptism River watershed. The non-linear relationship
j between the baseline sediment simulation and the measured maximum daily
I I
i I
25
30 35
• •
...c 25 . • 30
20 • • • 1: 25 .
GI
E
:aGI
15
10.
•
••
~
:a
~ 10.
20
15
•• • ••
• . ••
••
..:. ..:~ .
U)
5. 5
••
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.2
30 35
...
~ 20
25.
•
•
•
..
••
1:
~ 20
30
25
•
•
.5 15. • • :aGI • •• •
a! 10. ••• * •• 15 .
U)
• •
U) 10
5. ..,
• •
•
200 400 600 800 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
30 35
•• • •
...c 25
•• 1:
30
25
.••
20
GI
• ~ •
..•• . ....•• 20
E •
•
... "
15
:aGI
:aGI
,.. :. .. •• •• •
15
t/)
10
1~:\
• .,~ "'. .1. •
..~~
.,.l.... .. !lit.
U) 10 ..........
· ..:. ~"~~~ •.1i .. : • •
4 6 10
a
0 4
• 6 10
Figure Id (Cont'd.) Simulated monthly sediment yield (t/day) vs. monthly climate
input parameters for the Baptism River watershed. The non-linear
relationship between the baseline sediment simulation and the measured
maximum daily temperature is represented by a gray curve:
26
r
I
Baseline 2xC02
3000 1400
2500 • • 1200
S 2000 N
0
1000
800
~
~ 1600 •• • ~ 600
~ 1000 0 •
.,. ,~ .
1: •• ••• ;z 400
500
.+;•• ~.
•
.... .t ~.., • .... 200
•• ....... ~
•
.
0 0
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Preclp. Precip,
3000 1400
2600 •• 1200 •
II
I ;
S 2000
~ 1500 •
N
0
~
1000
800
.•
..
M 600
~ 1000 0 400
500
;Z
200 , •
0 0
·20 ·10 0 10 20 30 ·10 10 20 30 40
Max Temp Max Temp
3000 1400
•• •
2500 1200
•
S 2000 N
0
1000
:
~ 1500 • ;z 800
M
~ 1000
•• ......••• • M
0
;z
600
400
500
0
.30
•• ."'" • ...1•...
·20 ~10
iot.a...t*~.~
0 10 20
200
0
·20
.• ·10 0 10 20
Min Temp Min Temp
[J
3000 1400
2500 •• 1200
•
S 2000 N
0
1000
.'
...
...... . ·
BOO
~ 1500 ~
M •• M 600
~ 1000 0
500 ............ .. :
'.,,, .u..a...ft ....
;z ADO
200
0 •
·20 ·10 0 10 20 ·20 ~10 0 10 20 30
Av.e Temp Av.e Temp
[I
Figure le Simulated monthly nitrate/nitrite yield (kg/day) vs. monthly climate input
(~
;
i
I
parameters for the Baptism River watershed. The non-linear relationships
U between the nitrate/nitrite simulations and the measured and projected
maximum daily temperatures are represented by gray curves.
u
r~
II
I I
27
3000 1400
2500 • • 1200
•
8 2000 N
0
1000.
• •
~ 1500 • • 600
• • ~ •
...,. 600
C')
~ 1000 • • • •
0
Z 400 . •• •
500
0 •• :.!t:. . . . . . • ••• U·.J
200.
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.6 1.2

3000 1400
• 1200 •
2500 •
8 2000 N
0
1000 •
iC')i!: 1500 •••• ~
600.
..
0 1000 .....: 0
600.
Z
500
0 ,d ..1!.....
'"
•:;:.~:"'·M" .... .• Z 400
200
•• •
200 400 600 600 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
3000 1400
• • 1200 •
2500 •
8 2000 0
N 1000
• •
iii!: • Z 600
· : ...
1500
C') •• ;;; 600. •
0 1000 0
Z 400
• •• Z
500
•• ~ .. .•... .:..... •
• 200
0
• •
4 6 10 4 6 10
Figure Ie (Cont'd.) Simulated monthly nitrate/nitrite yield (kg/day) vs. monthly

relationships between the nitrate/nitrite simulations and the measured and
projected maximum daily temperatures are represented by gray curves.
28
I
! I
Cottonwood River Watershed

I
I
Overall, precipitation was the best predictor for changes in streamflow and water
! !
quality in the Cottonwood River watershed. Air temperature was also a good predictor
for some of the water quality parameters. Soil water, which reflects the precipitation and
temperature input from past months was as good or better at predicting changes in
streamflow and water quality as precipitation and temperature. For the most part,
because of the decrease in snowmelt and snow accumulation, temperature decreased in its
influence when the 2xC02 simulation was run. Furthermore, precipitation decreased in
its ability to explain changes in nutrient yields in the 2xC02 simulation due, in part, to the
decrease in annual average nutrient yields.
The statistics comparing monthly climate parameters to monthly SWAT output

for the Cottonwood River watershed are shown in Table 9 and the correlations between
climate parameters are shown in Table 10. Many of the linear relationships between the
climate parameters and the SWAT output were stronger than the same relationships in the
ii Baptism River watershed. For example, the CoD for the linear relationship between
streamflow and precipitation in the 2xC02 simulations was 0.44 (Table 9). In the
baseline simulation, however, the CoD was only 0.13 for the same relationship and the
CoD was only 0.12 for the non-linear relationship between streamflow and maximum
daily temperature (Fig. 2a, Table 9). The linear relationship between streamflow and
solar radiation yielded a CoD of 0.11; solar radiation was highest during April through
August. This time period included the spring snowmelt, i.e., the time of year when
streamflow is usually the highest. The best individual predictor of streamflow in the
baseline simulation was the simulated amount of water in the soil. The CoD for the linear
relationship between streamflow and soil water was 0.27. Soil water acted as an indicator
of past precipitation and temperature. For example, when precipitation was high in the
fall before the soil froze, water retention in the soil led to higher snowmelt runoff in the
spring than when the fall was dry.
In the 2xC02 simulation, warmer air temperatures led to a decline in the

importance of snowmelt, so the non-linear relationship with temperature that had a large
peak due to the spring snowmelt disappeared; the CoDs for solar radiation and soil water
I decreased to 0.01 and 0.09, respectively, and precipitation became the most important
L.
predictor (CoD = 0.44) of streamflow (Table 9). Because of the warmer climate of the
the 2xC02 scenario, less of the precipitation was in the form of snow and more was rain.
I
I Therefore, there was not as much of a delay between the time of precipitation and the
1---"
resulting runoff, which caused the correlation between streamflow and precipitation to be
I I, much stronger.
LJ
The influence of solar radiation and soil water on the simulated water quality in
the Cottonwood River followed the same pattern and can be explained by the same line of
reasoning as for streamflow. Because of the role of temperature in determining snowmelt
runoff, the linear relationships between maximum daily temperature and sediment and
nutrient yields had CoDs from 0.11 to 0.31 in the baseline simulations, but because of the
29
i I
I
decrease in the importance of snowmelt, the CoDs shrank to 0.0 to 0.13 in the 2xC02
simulations (Table 9).
Table 9 Sensitivity statistics for the SWAT simulation of the Cottonwood River
watershed. The coefficient of determination (CoD) is given for each pair of
input and output variables for the baseline and 2xC02 climate scenarios. If the
value is marked with 11', then a non-linear relationship was used to calculate the
CoD.
Scenario Parameter Streamflow Total P NH3/0rgN Sediment N03/N02
Baseline Precip. 0.13 0.44 0.50 0.23 0.04
Max Temp 0.1211' 0.15 0.18 0.1211' 0.1111'
Min Temp 0.00 0.18 0.21 0.04 0.00
Mean Temp 0.00 0.16 0.19 0.03 0.00
Humidity 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.01
Solar Rad 0.11 0.20 0.22 0.11 0.20
Wind Speed 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00
Soil Water 0.27 0.16 0.12 0.21 0.31
2xC02 Precip. 0.44 0.36 0.11 0.27 0.03

Max Temp 0.03 0.10 0.04 0.02 O.ln
Min Temp 0.03 0.12 0.04 0.03 0.01
Mean Temp 0.03 0.11 0.04 0.02 0.01
Humidity 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00
Solar Rad 0.01 0.13 0.04 0.01 0.08
Wind Speed 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02
Soil Water 0.09 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.08
For total phosphorus yields, precipitation and temperature retained about the same
importance between the two climate scenarios. A linear relationship with precipitation
yielded CoDs of 0.44 and 0.36 for the baseline and 2xC02 simulations of total
phosphorus yields, respectively, and a linear relationship with mean daily air temperature
yielded CoDs of 0.16 and 0.11. Ammonia/organic N yields, on the other hand, saw a
sharp decrease in the strength of their relationship with precipitation and mean daily air
temperature: the CoDs dropped from 0.50 and 0.19, respectively, to 0.11 and 0.04. The
decreases· in the influence of precipitation and temperature were most likely related to the
sharp decrease in ammonia/organic N yields between the two scenarios (Fig. 2c). The
decrease in simulated ammonia/organic N available for transport was so large that
changes in runoff from precipitation had a relatively small effect on the ammonia/organic
N yields (Hanratty and Stefan, 1997c).
The relationships between the simulated sediment yields and climate parameters
were only a little different from the streamflow-climate parameter relationships. In the
baseline scenario, soil water was a good predictor (CoD = 0.21) for sediment yield and
30
the non-linear relationship between sediment yields and maximum daily temperature
i ' yielded a CoD of 0.12 (Fig. 2d). A linear relationship between sediment and
\ precipitation, however, was as good a predictor (CoD 0.23) of the variation in sediment
;:=
yields as soil water. In the 2xCO z scenario, the best predictor of sediment yield was
I
precipitation (CoD 0.27).
;:=
climate parameters for the Cottonwood River watershed. Precipitation and air
I" temperature data were measured in the watershed. Humidity, solar radiation,
and wind speed were generated by SWAT based on historical monthly means
and the precipitation and temperature data.
fl Scenario Parameter Max Min Mean Humidity Solar Wind
Baseline Rainfall 0.54 0.58 0.56 -0.17 0.36 -0.09
I !
~-, Max Temp 0.99 1.00 -0.24 0.47 -0.27
Min Temp 1.00 -0.24 0.48 -0.28
Mean Temp -0.24 0.48 -0.28
Humidity -0.30 0.07
SolarRad -0.07
2xC02 Rainfall 0.49 0.54 0.51 -0.06 0.41 -0.13

Max Temp 0.99 1.00 -0.16 0.63 -0.34
Min Temp 1.00 -0.16 0.65 -0.33
Mean Temp -0.16 0.64 -0.33
Humidity -0.21 0.00
SolarRad -0.10
I
\ .... J
~_ Monthly nitrate/nitrite yields in the Cottonwood River were not linearly related to
the monthly precipitation and temperatures. Furthermore, the CoOs for the non-linear
r'
I
relationship between nitrate/nitrite and maximum daily temperature were only 0.12 and
L 0.17 in the baseline and 2xCO z scenarios, respectively (Table 9, Fig. 2e). The most likely
explanation is that the largest changes in the simulated transport of nitrate/nitrate were
I due to snowmelt and fertilization. This explanation is supported by the strong linear
L relationship with soil water (CoD:::: 0.31) in the baseline simulation, by the weak linear
relationship with soil water in the 2xCO z simulation (CoD:::: 0.08) and by the maximum
daily temperatures at the time of the peak nitrate/nitrite yields (about 10 to 20°C for the
baseline simulation and about 20 to 25°C for the 2xCOz simulation). The change in the
relationships between temperature and nutrient yields and between soil water and nutrient
yields supports the conclusion that decreasing snowmelt was a cause for large changes in
nutrient yields, as was discussed earlier. The temperature-nitrate/nitrate relationships also
I I i show that fertilization was a cause for large changes in nitrate/nitrite yields in the 2xCO z
31
simulation. Much of the simulated fertilization was in spring to early summer, when
maximum daily temperatures range from about 15 to 25°C. That temperature range
coincides with the largest changes in nitrate/nitrite yields.
Baseline 2xC02
70 60
60
~ 50 •
~ 50
~ 40
~ •
40
111 30 ••
E
III
30
• • •
• • ....e! • • ••
• • •• • •• •••
CD 20
~ 20 #
• ••
Ito.. ./I.!:;~ I • .~.) • •
(/J 10 (/J 10
• • 0 • ~
0 60 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250

Precip. Precip.
70 60
60
• •
~ 50
~ 50 • ~ 40
~ •
.. • • •• •••
40
111 30
~ 30
CD
~ 20
• •• ,g 20 •
(/J 10 (/J 10
•• •
-20 -10 10 20 30 40 -10 " 10 20 30 40
Max Temp Max Temp
70 60
60
• •
~ 50
~ 50 • ~ 40
~ 40 • • E 30
:II30 111
b 20 ....e! 20
•
(/J 10 (/J 10
0
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
Min Temp Min Temp
70 60
•
60
~ 50 •
~ 50 • ~ 40
~ 40 • •
111 30
••
E
111
30
• ••
CD
J:; 20 ....e! 20 •
(/J 10 (/J 10
0 ••• 0 •
-20 -10 0 10 20 30 -10 10 20 30
Ave Temp Ave Temp
Cottonwood River watershed. The non-linear relationship between the
baseline streamflow simulations and the measured maxImum daily
32
70 60
60 60
rI ~
~
60
• ~
I;::
40
\II 30
40
•
E
\II
30
• •
(_. ~ ~O. ...I!! 20 •• • • .....,.
\
II) 10 II) 10 •
0
I 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.6 0 0.2 OA 0.6 0.8
(,
I 70
•
60
60
~ 50 •
~ 60
~ 40
~ 40
m 30
EM
\II
:
~ 20 ...
I!! 20
II) 10.
10
0
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
70 60
60
~ 50
~ 60
~ 40
~ • •
40
\II 30 •• E
\II
30 • ••
.....I!!
. ...
III 20
I - b 20
II) 10
••
••
(J) 10
I 4 2 4 6
~:
10
r,
I.
Figure 2a (Cont'd.) Simulated monthly streamflow vs. monthly climate input
parameters for the Cottonwood River watershed. The non-linear relationship
between the baseline streamflow simulations and the measured maXImum
daily temperatures is represented by a gray curve.
\'1
1
r
) I
\ __ 1
33
Baseline 2xC02
1800 450
1600 • • 400 •
1400. • 350
Q. 1200. •• • Q. 300
•...
• • •
~
1000.
•• - 250
,
800.
I- 600.
~
,~
.,
••
.... ........
~ • • J!! 200
{!. 150
100. • •• • •• • •
.~~< •• • ••
400.
200. .t.• ."4 ::At~~·
~. ~.
• 50.
0
I .. ·.~". ~~Of.'" "•
0 50 100 150 200 250 50 100 150 200 250
Preclp. Preclp.
1800 450
1600 •• 400 •
1400 350 •
Q. 1200
1000
• Q. 300
250
~ 800
~ 200 •
I- 600 I- 150
400 100 •
200 50
0 0
-20 -10 10 20 30 40 -10 10 20 30 40
Max Temp Max Temp
1800 450
1600
•• 400
•
1400
Q. 1200
• 350
Q. 300
1000 - 250
S 800 J!! 200 •• •
0
I- 600
400
{!. 150
100 • •
200 50
0
•
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
Min Temp Min Temp
1800 450
1600 •• 400 •
1400 • 350
Q. 1200 • Q. 300
1000 • - 250
S0
800
I- 600
J!! 200
{!. 150 ••
• • •
400
200
0
100
50 .......•
-20 -10 0 10 20 30 -10 0 10 20 30
Ave Temp Ave Temp
parameters for the Cottonwood River watershed.
34
(
1800 450
1600 400 •
1400 350 •
D.. 1200 D.. 300
_ 250
1000.
~0 800 ~ •
I- 600 I- 150
200
•• • ••
400 100
200. 50
0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0,8 0.2 0.4 0,6 0,8
1800 450
1600
• 400 •
HOD
• •• 350
0. 300
•
D.. 1200
..'........
I 1000
~0 800
- 250
•
1 •# J!I 200
• •
I
I- 600. ~ 150 •
400
200
100
50
.~
,\.
0 0
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
1800 450
1600 •
• •
400
1400 350 •
D.. 1200 • • D.. 300
1000 •• • _ 250
•
~0
800
I- 600
400 •
...." •
~
I- 150
200
100 •
•
•
200 • • 50
0 •
4 4 6 10
Figure 2b (Cont'd.) Simulated monthly total phosphorus yield vs. monthly climate
35
Baseline 2xC02
3000 . ,______________.-.______________--,
9000r-------------••~---------.• - - - - - - ,
8000
• 2500
..
7000
~ 6000 • • ~ 2000
• • • •
:::: 4000
...
:;:: 3000· . , ..... ..,.".•, .
0.. 5 0 0 0 . • • • •• •••
..~ . . . . . . •
"fl ••
• •
o
~
1500
1000 • • •
•
•
Z 2000
1000
•
#.t#.:~ .~
. .,~~~~
....
... •
Z 500
••
50 100 150 200 250 50 100 150 200 250
Precip. Precip.
9000 ,.-________--,____-::______••,.-------., 3000 ,.-_ _.,-_ _ _ _ _ _ _-.--_ _ __,
8000
Z 7000
•
• 2500 •
Cl 6000
o 5000
_ 4000
• •
••
..
~ 2000
~ 1500
•
~
Z
3000
2000
:c 1000 • •
Z 500
1000 •..I' ...
-20 -10 10 20 30 40 -10 10 20 30 40
Max Temp Max Temp
9000 . -__________________,.-_______.---.,
• 3000 . -_ _ _ _ _, -_ _ _,.-_ _ _ _- ,
8000
Z 7000 • 2500 •
oCl 6000
5000
;:;; 4000
• ••
..
~ 2000
~ 1500 •
•
•
:c 3000
Z 2000
:c 1000 • • •• •
Z 500
1000
o~~ ____ ~~~
~: .. ..1..
. . .it,i.
__•••~ ~--~
-30 -20 -10 a 10 20 -20 -10 o 10 20 30

Min Temp Min Temp
9000 ,.-__________-,-__--:;,.-______:<'"""____--, 3000 . -______, -____________-..;-______,

8000 •
7000 • 2500 •
~ 6000
o 5000
;:;; 4000
• •
••
..
~ 2000
~ 1500 •
•
•
:c 3000 :c 1000 • • ••
Z 2000
Z 500 • •
1000
o~____~~~~_·~~J~.~~~,~~~~·~~'~
-20 -10 a 10 20 30 -10 10 20 30
Ave Temp Ave Temp

36
r-
9000 r------~.---------Ol 3000 -r-------.----------,

aooo 2500
7000
~ ~ 2000 •
o 6000
5000
o... • •
•••
_ 4000 1500
~ 3000 ~ 1000
••
:z 2000
500 • •
1000.
O~~-+~~~~~~~~~~ o+---~~.·~·~~~~~··~·.·~~.w~·~·~~-~~
..~
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 o 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
/' ,
:~~~r-----------~.~.~---. 300 0 . , . . - - - - - - - - - - - . - - . - - - - - - ,
2500 •
:z 7000 ••
Cl 6000 ~
... 2000
o .~.
. '.•••
6000 •
M 4000 ~..J." • ~ 150~
"ft t "
__
\ !
:I: 3000 • '. ~ 1000
Z 2000 • ""!S~. #t 500 •
~ • • • \~
1000
o+-_~~~~~~ ..
•
~~~ __ -+_~ • • 10.
O~~.~~~ _~. ~~. '-*-'
~~~~w.~--~
o 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 o 100 200 300 400 500 SOD 700
3000.,.-_ _ _ _ _ _ _-.-._ _ _ _ _ _---,

:~~~ .,.-------..c--.~---------,
:z 7000
2500 •
Cl 8000 .
• Z
o • • •
Cl 2000.
M
5000
4000 • o... 1600 • •
:I: 3000 ~ 1000 •
Z 2000
1000 •• Z 500
•
•• •
4 6 4 6 10
Figure 2c (Cont'd.) Simulated monthly ammonia/organic nitrogen yield vs. monthly

climate input parameters for the Cottonwood River watershed.
\
I. J
I I
37
Baseline 2xC02
1400 -,.-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _- . . - - - - - , 1800.,--_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _- ,
1200 reoo •
1400
1: 1000 • • • 1: 1200
~ 800
• ~ 1000
1j BOO
• .- 800
'g 600 •
tI) 400.
200
• •• tI) 400
200
•• ••• •
'A~ .... ~,..
#:, .• , ••
o~. . . . . .~~~~~~--~
50 100 150 200 250 o 50 100 150 200 250
Preclp. Preclp.
1400 ,..-_ _ _--,-_ _ _- ._ _ _ _- ,

1800 ,-----,r------:------,
1200 reoo •
1400
.... 1000 •• • 1: 1200
.~ 800
• • ._~ 1000
600 •
600
! 400 'g
tI) 600
400 • ••••• ~
•
•• ,
200 L~. . . .C!:~:! 200O~____. . ~.i.. ~ ..:.. dllt.. •
. .~~~~~~~
-20 -10 o 10 20 30 40 -10 10 20 30 40
Max Temp Max Temp
1400 ,..-_ _ _ _ _ _ _-,----;,-_ _- , 1800 ,..-_ _ _ _--,-_ _ _ _ _ _ _---,
1:
1200
1000 .. • C
1600
~~~~
•
i :~~
tl)
400
• ~
-
'g
tI)
1000
800
~
400 • .~ ••••••
•
•
*•
200
• 200O~-M__~ ~.~~
•.. ~~.~~~!l&_c..
__~~~~
O~~~. . . .~~~~~~. .~
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 -20 -10 o 10 20 30
Min Temp Min Temp
1400 ,--_ _ _ _-,._ _--,,--_ _ _----, 1800 ,--_ _-,-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _- ,

1200 1600 •
1: 1000 •• •
...1400
C 1200
~ 800 ~ 1000
1j 600
• • - 800 •
400
'g 600 •
tI)
200
tI) 400 • .: ........ ,
20~ 1-4II....._~..~_.. I.~~~t/,;fI.IIIlI.QA~~.~Ii1.III~~.
" ....
-10 o 10 20 30 -10 o 10 20 30
Ave Temp Ave Temp
the Cottonwood River watershed. The non-linear relationship between the
baseline sediment yield simulations and the measured maXImum daily
38
1400 1BOO
•
1:
(I)
E
1~00
1000
BOO
• .. ...
1600
1400
c 1200
~ 1000,
:c
(I)
600, :c
(I)
BOO
600
II) 400 II) 400
200 200 •• ••
0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 O.B 0.2 0.4 0.6 O.B
r'
1400 1BOO
1200
• 1600
... 1400
1: 1000,
•• c 1200
~ 1000
(I)
BOO
E
:c •• :c •
•
.
600, BOO
\ 600
,
(I) (I)
II) 400 II) 400
• •
(
200
100 200 300 400 500 600 700

200
0
100 200 300 400
"' • •
•
500 600 700
! Solar Radiation Solar Radiation
1400 1600
1200
• 1600 •
...c 1000,
• • 1: i~~~
~
(I)
BOO 1000
E
:c 600 :c BOO
(I) (I) 600 •
.
• ••• • •
U) 400 II) 400
200
0
•
;" ""
200
••
• •• •
4 4 6 10
Figure 2d (Cont'd.) Simulated monthly sediment yield vs. monthly climate input
parameters for the Cottonwood River watershed. The non-linear relationship
I between the baseline sediment yield simulations and the measured maximum
,I '
I
daily temperatures is represented by a gray curve.
!-'i
\
r I
Ii
i ~/
\-,
I
L
('
I I
1_"
39
Baseline 2xC02
60000,-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _---, 80000 ...-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _---,
70000 •
50000 •
a 40000 • •
N 60000
o 50000
•
~ 30000 ~ 40000
~ 20000.
• o 30000 • •
Z 20000 •••• •
1000~ ~1...'.f.. .IiIi\.-.lo#~

.. •••t'.r,.'IIo..,1iil~..
~~-....-......_+__tL,-•.....!..__l
10000
••
O~. .~~~~~L-~~~~
o 50 100 150 200 250 o 50 100 150 200 250
Preclp. Preclp.
60000 , -_ _ _-,..._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _--,

80000 ,....----r------------,
50000 • 70000 •
a 40000
••
N 60000
o 500no
•
~ 30000
~ 20000
10000 i
~ 40000
o 30000
Z 20000
• •
• ,;~-.
.. .•
• • •~ • •• t
o L~·!.o.~
-20 -10
..;St;lt~~=
o 10 20 30 40
10000
o~~~~. .__~~__~
-10 o 10 20 30 40
Max Temp Max Temp
60000 ,..-_ _ _ _ _ _ _-,-_ _ _ _---,

80000,..------,...---------,
50000 • 70000 •
a 40000 ..
N 60000
o 50000
•
~ 30000 ;. ~ 40000
O
Z 20000
..
...
..
••
o 30000 •
.....
~ ( Z 20000 • •
1000~ ~_iIII--_ ~'IW·III-"l.._~-1
10000 ...
• •••• it.t • IiIII(j.Io6ti....;":Ii.·...
-
o~~~~~~~~~. .~~~~
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 -20 -10 o 10 20 30
Min Temp Min Temp
60000 ,-------r----------, 80000 ,----r-----------,

50000 • 70000
•
a 40000 •• N 60000
o 50000
•
~ 30000 ~ 40000
• o •
••
~ 20000 30000
10000
Z 20000 • •
10000
o • ••
-20 -10 o 10 20 30 o 10 20 30
Ave Temp Ave Temp
for the Cottonwood River watershed. The non-linear relationships between
the nitrate/nitrite simulations and the measured and projected maximum daily
temperatures are represented by gray curves.
40
60000,--_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _---, 80000,--_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _---,
70000
50000
N 60000
Cl 40000. o 50000
Ii!: Ii!:
C')
~ 20000
30000
+.-::. .; .. :\ 8
40000
30000
•• ••
•
10000 • • ~... _•••" • • • ' . 4t>+
~ .~ ••• * •
Z 20000
10000
••:
.
k
.:.
~.:s.•.l~ ..•
•• .+ •
~
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

60000.,-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _---, 80000 , -_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _- ,
50000 70000
N 60000
I··
Cl 40000 • o 50000
•
~ 30000 • Ii!:
40000
\ 8
.
C')
30000
~ 20000 I •
1 Z 20000 • •:. ••
10000
O~~~~~~~~~~~~--~
10000
.... ·.U'\.:t"t··
o 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
60000,-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _---, 80000

50000 • 70000 •
N 60000
Cl 40000
• o 50000
~ 30000 •• • ~ 40000
C')
8
~ 20000 30000
Z 20000
,.. ...
:~..r..... t,•
• • •
10000
4
10000
.. 4 6
.!I...•
10
I
l .
Figure 2e (Cont'd.) Simulated monthly nitrate/nitrite yield vs. monthly climate input
parameters for the Cottonwood River watershed. The ,non-linear
r; relationships between the nitrate/nitrite simulations and the measured and
, .1
projected maximum daily temperatures are represented by gray curves.
1\
\ .. 1
. I.)
ii
I '
41
Little Washita River Watershed
The statistics comparing monthly input parameters and monthly output variables
for the Little Washita River watershed are shown in Table 11 and the correlations
between climate parameters are shown in Table 12. Since snowmelt is not a major
portion of the hydrologic budget in the Little Washita River, temperature did not playa
direct role in explaining the variation in the simulated streamflow and water quality. The
non-linear relationships used to calculate the coefficients of determination in the northern
watersheds did not apply to the Little Washita watershed (Fig. 3). Precipitation was the
best predictor of monthly streamflow, total phosphorus yield, ammonia/organic nitrogen
yield, sediment yield, and nitrate/nitrite yield (Table 11). Linear relationships between
the variation in precipitation and the variation in streamflow and water quality yielded
CoDs between 0.45 and 0.61. The CoDs of all of the other climate parameters were less
than 0.10. Soil water, however, was a significant predictor of streamflow and water
quality as well. Linear relationships between the variation in precipitation and the
variation in streamflow and water quality yielded CoDs between 0.13 and 0.35.
Therefore, the most important input variable to measure and project accurately for the
Little Washita River watershed is precipitation. It is also be important to accurately
simulate the retention and percolation of water through the soil.
42
Table 11 Sensitivity statistics for the SWAT simulation of the Little Washita River
watershed. The coefficient of determination (CoD) from a linear relationship
I-
I
is given for each pair of input and output variables for the baseline and 2xC0 2
. climate scenarios.
Scenario Parameter Streamflow Total P NH3/0rgN Sediment N03IN02
Baseline Rainfall 0.46 0.48 0.45 0.54 0.52
J Max Temp 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.00
i , Min Temp 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.01
I
Mean Temp 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.00
Humidity 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Solar Rad 0.06 0.09 0.10 0.08 0.07
Wind Speed 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00
r SoH Water 0.13 0.15 0.14 0.15 0.35
I
2xC02 Rainfall 0.56 0.52 0.51 0.51 0.61
i
.\ Max Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
I
i
_,
Min Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
I
Mean Temp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
) 1 Humidity 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00
, 1
Solar Rad 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.00
Wind Speed 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00
Soil Water 0.33 0.17 0.16 0.19 0.31
fI I
\
I j
I(
I
I
'[ I
I I
I
I I
43
Table 12 Pearson correlation coefficients for the relationships between the monthly
climate parameters for the Little Washita River watershed. Precipitation and
air temperature data were measured in the watershed. Humidity, solar
radiation, and wind speed were generated by SWAT based on historical
monthly means and the precipitation and temperature data.
Scenario Parameter Max Min Mean Humidity Solar Wind
Baseline Rainfall 0.31 0.36 0.34 -0.03 0.33 -0.08
Max Temp 0.98 1.00 -0.06 0.61 -0.29
Min Temp 1.00 -0.07 0.63 -0.29
Mean Temp -0.07 0.62 -0.29
Solar Rad -0.07
2xC02 Rainfall 0.18 0.21 0.19 0.02 0.10 -0.06

Max Temp 0.98 1.00 -0.22 0.65 -0.20
Min Temp 1.00 -0.23 0.67 -0.20
Mean Temp -0.23 0.66 -0.20
Solar Rad -0.08
44
Baseline 2xC02
45,-------------------------------, 180~----------------------------__,
40
,. 35
160 •
~ 140
i) 30 • o 120
G:: 25
~ 20
I!! 16
... •.. •
• J1:~ •
iii 10 •• •• w 40 •
5
O~~~~~~~~+_--+_--+_~
2~ w..1t"..w :.; ..'
o 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 100 200 300 40P 500 BOO 700
Preclp. Preclp.
iI I
45r-__- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - , 180~------------------------------,
40 • 160
it 35 • it 140
o 30 •• O
120
G:: 25
~ 20
i1CIS 100
80 • •
I!! 15 ~ 60
iii 10
..• ..... • •• ~, 40
20. ~
•• O~--~~~~~~~~---~
10 20 30 40 o 10 20 30 40 50
Max Temp Max Temp
45 r--------,----------------------, 180 r---,-------------------------__,

40 • 160 •
~ 35 • ~ 140
o 30 •• o 120
G:: 25 • i1
~ 20
I!! 15 • '" . ~ 40:~
100
iii 10 • •• w
5 ..: 20
o ~~. .~~~. .~~. .~~~~~~~
-10 -5 5 10 15 20 25 -5 10 15 20 25 3D
Min Temp Min TemP
45 r---~------------------------_, 180,---------------__----------____,
40 • 160 •
it
o 30
35 •• it
O
140
120
•
G:: 25
~ 20 ~.... . • i1CIS 100
80 • •
I!! 15
iii 10
• ... <It
•••• .+. .'" .....
• .,. I. •• ..
I!!
iii
60
40
20 ••
o ~_+4'=<Oo......~••~",...~.~ • ..::.~~l,..'~~.#..~a·i.oIo+xA·L.""'.....;tjf
........,.......:: O~_+~~~~~~~~~~~~
.s 10 15 20 25 3D 10 16 20 25 30 36
Ave Temp Ave Temp
ji
I
I
Little Washita River watershed.
!
r
!'
I
i ;
45
45r-----------------------------~ l00r-----------------------------,
40 160 _ •
3: 35 3: 140
o 30 • • o 120
;;:: 25
~ 20
•• • +.
i 100
III 00- ••
~ 15 •• • • • ~ 60
en 10 • •• • ••••• • •
•• L.·~
• .. ~
en 40
5
• • ••i$.../~'- ..'• 20
• •
a 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.0 o 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.2
45 .
40
r------------------------------.• 100,-----------------------------,
reo •
3:
O W ·
• 35 3:
o
140_
120
;;:: 25 : ;;:: 100
~ 20 • : • ~ 80 ••
. ..:+
....••
Q) • • •
~ 60
./:I
II)
15.
10 :+ •••• • • • •
en 40_
5 : • • .•~ ..!l •• ••ltuti .~. 20
0~--+--+~~~~~+4~~~~ o~~--~~~~~~~~~
o 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 o 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
180 , -____________________________-,
45,------------------------------,
40 • 160 •
3:
.g
35_
30 •
• 3:
o
140
120
E 25_ • • ;;:: 100
~
co
!
U)
20
15
10
.+.. ..
• •
.\._ • • • :• • •
••
.+
• en
80
I!! 60
40
••
•
~+---~~:~.~.~'..~~.~.~.~~.~.~~~~~~ 2~!__+~·~~'·~-'-i~~·~··i~~·~I1~~.·~"~~~~~·~.~~
2 4 6 10 o 4 6 8 10
Figure 3a (Cont'd.) Simulated monthly streamflow vs. monthly climate input

46
Baseline 2xC02
140 800
120 700
D.
100
•
600
D. 500
•
aD.
• •• j!i 400
~ 60 •
i!
\
f- 40
20
0
'-~.
...!lti. •.£.~~~.
. ...
• •
•
• {:. 300.
200 ,
100
0 •oM.· ··t ••
• •
0 50 100 150 200 250 aDO 350 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Preclp. Precip.
140 800
120
• • 700.
100
• 600
•
D. D. 500
80
j!i 60 • •• ~
.. j!i
o
400
•
{:. 300
40
• •• •• f- 200
20
0 •. orl·~:t~_
•.• I 0
100 .
....s.
••••...
____t.:
0 10 20 30 40 10 20 30 40 50
Max Temp Max Temp
140 800
120
•
0
700 •
100 600
D. D. 500
80
j!i
•• •• ... j!i 400
., ... .
{:.
60 • {:. 300 •
40
••
...... •
0 200
•
20
.10
...
·5 5 10
~.,; ~
15 20
.....
25
100
0
·5 5
_1
10
~.~,~
15
..t.a.
25 30
20
l 140
Min Temp
800
Min Temp
120
• 700 •
•
\
D.
j!i
0
100
80
60
•0
. • •
600
D. 500
j!i 400
{:. 300 •
•
••• ••
f-
·::..:..:
40
•.•. .
200
20 • • •
~. 100 •• 0
• 0 _\. • .410 0._,*
.5 10 15 20 25 30 10 15 20 25 30 35
Ave Temp Ave Temp
\
I
tJ
47
140 800
120
• • 700 •
•
D.
~
100
80
• ..• •
•
600
D. 500
]j 400
•
•
••
60.
I- • ~ 300
40
• • 200
•
20
0
0
• • ••
•
0.2 0.4
• ~·A..I#
0.6
• +: 100
0
0 0.2
•
0.4
.•. • • .41.: •
0.6 0.8
J
1.2
0.6
140 800
120
• • 700 •
100. • 600.
•
D. • D. 500
~
80
60.
•
• •
• •
•••• .. jlj 400
~ 300 . •
. ..
I-
.•
40.
• 200
•
20
0
100 200 300
•••• • • ~»
400
...
500 600 700
100
0
0 100 200
if 300
...to.
400 600
~~
600 700
140 800
120
•• 700 •
100 • 600
•
D.
80
• D. 500
•• • • jlj 400
~ 60
• • •• • • • • ~ 300 •
_.•
..
40 200
20 • • .<lllts..• •~.'~
• • • .~
100 • .~ •
0 0
2 4 6 8 10 0 4 6 10
Figure 3b (Cont'd.) Simulated monthly total phosphorus yield vs. monthly climate
48
Baseline 2xC02
1000 4500
900 4000
BOD Z 3500
Z
700 Cl 3000
e' 600
(5 2500
Q 500 •
M 400
• • • M 2000 •
r- ;I: 300 0
• • ;I: 1500
\
Z 200
100
0
....·~i..••.:t' •• • ••
50 100 150 200
•
250 300
•
350
Z 1000
500
0
0
-.
•
100
0 •
••••+
200 300
•
400 500 600 700
Precip. Precip.
\' 1000 4500
900 4000
\ 1 Z
BOD
• Z 3500
700
, • oCl 3000
·. •
I e' 600
2500
\ Q 500
M 400
;I: 300
• ~
M 2000
;I: 1500
•
(
Z 200
100
0
10
o
• o·
20
•
~... ~:Ii!.
..
3D
0
40
Z 1000
500
0
0 10
..1
20
.'
.~'j
3D
. 40 50
Max Temp Max Temp
r ..
1000 4500
\i 900
BOO Z
4000
3500
Z 700
• •
e' 600
.0
, oOJ 3000
2500
~ •
500
,. ..•
M 2000
r· 400
;I: 300
0
•
0 0 ;I: 1500
l Z 200 0 Z 1000
• •
"~..,l.~~. ~.:...-" •..... ~ . , •
500
100
0 • -1 ..t..
·10 ·5 5 10 15 20 25 ·5 0 5 10 15 20 25 3D
Min Temp Min Temp
1000 4500
900 4000
r- l Z
800
700 •
•
Z 3500
•
I \ e' 600
•• •• , oCl 3000
2500
~
500
400 M 2000 •
;I: 300 • ;I: 1500
Z
• ... ~!.•:••.;.-::..:
• • • Z 1000
[
200 .0
100
0 • ~.
500
0 .\ ... .:a. t. ~'-t.
.5 10 15 20 26 30 10 15 20 25 3D 36
Ave Temp Ave Temp
r -_.

(
)
I I
I I
49
1000 4500
900 4000
800 + Z 3500
Z 700. +
+ m 3000
e' 800
Q 500 + +. 0 2500
_ 2000
•
• • • ••
. S!
CO) 400
:c 300 1500
Z • Z 1000
200
100
0
• • ~
*...'!"" .# • • • 500
0
• ....• •• •••• ."- ....
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 0.8 0 0.2 0.4 0.8 0.8 1.2
1000 4500
900 4000
••
800 Z 3500
Z
e'
700
800
e' 3000 . •
2500
~
500
400 + • • •+. • ~ 20~0. •
•••• :c
:c
Z
300.
200.
100
0 • • • ..
••••
...
.#' ...- .:.:,
Z
1500
1000
600
il
0 100 200
tt
.,.
300 400 500
_..•
600 700
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
1000 4500
900 4000
800
• Z 3500
.
Z 700
m 800 •
••• 0
m 3000
2500
•
~
500
fii 2000 •
:c
400 • ••• •• :c 1500
300
• •
Z 200
100
0
0
. •• 2
"!}~.~#~ ,.
4
••• •
6
• •
8 10
Z 1000
500
0
0
• •
':.
4
~. .-.
6 8 10
Figure 3c (Cont'd.) Simulated monthly ammonia/organic nitrogen yield vs. monthly

climate input parameters for the Little Washita River watershed.
50
J I
Baseline 2xC02
aooo .,-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _-.,,--_ _ _--, 35000.,-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.-.-,
I 6000. 30000
1:Gl • 1: 25000
4000
~ 20000 •
E 3000 •• + :c
=g
U)
2000.
1000 •• . • • 15000
~ 10000
5000
• ..&.. . :....
O~. .~. .~~~_r--~--+_~ o . .~. .~~~--_+--_+--~--~
50 100 150 200 250 500 550 o 100 200 300 400 600 600 700
Preclp. Precip.
55000 .,-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _-.-

• _ _ _ _ _--,
6000.,----------.------,
5000 30000
....§ 1000 •• 1: l5000
CD lOOOO •
E 1000 E •
:cGl !Ooo
:0 CD
15000
..
10000
U)
1000 • U)
.\
10 20 30 40 10 20 30 40 50
Max Temp Max Temp
r·
6000 35000
5000 30000
....§ 4000 • • 1: 25000
~ 20000
E
:c
3000
•• • :0 15000 •
Gl 2000 CD
U) 10000
U)
1000 • 5000
0 0
·10 ·5 5 10 15 20 25 .5 5 10 15 20 25 30
Min Temp Min Temp
6000 35000
30000
... 5000
/\ != 4000
Gl
E 3000
• +.
•
•
•
1:
:c
25000
~ 20000
•
•
..; ••,.... .•."..::t.t• ....:

15000
=g 2000 CD
U) 10000
U)
1000 ~ 5000 •
~ ~.~ • ..,," .. ~t..
a
·5 0 10 15 20 25 30 a 10 15 20 25 30 35
Ave Temp Ave Temp
the Little Washita River watershed.
[J
r
\ ,
L.
I !
51
6000 35000
5000.
• 30000
li 4000 • • 1: 25000
~ 20000 •
.S 3000
• • • :a •
• •
i0 ... rZ
15000
.
2000
•
...•• •
10000
••
1000.
0
• ..:.' ••• •
• ~ ~. • .h.,.
5000
0 • ~ ~
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.6 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.6 1.2

6000
5000
• 35000
30000
.
....5i 4000. • 1: 25000
~ 20000 •
.S 3000
:a •
i0 2000 • rZ
15000
10000
1000.
•• •
0
5000
0 ...J..l ... ·c..... ·
0 100 200 300 400 500 BOO 700 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Solar RadIation Solar Radiation
6000
5000
• 35000
30000
.
1: 4000 • • 1: 25000
•
GI
~ 20000
E 3000 • :a •
=g • • • •• 15000
2000
rZ
•••• •• • •
..
0 10000
1000 •
0
•. r. ~~-•• ~....\::_ • . • ~
5000
0
• j •• ..t.o, •
0 4 6 8 10 0 4 6 8 10
Figure 3d (Cont'd.) Simulated monthly sediment yield vs. monthly climate input
52
I'
Baseline 2xC02
r-- 1400 3000
I 1200 2500
\ N 1000 • S 2000. •
0
•
..•• ...
BOO.
2: +. •\ • 2: 1500 • •
(
I!
M
0
:z
600
400 • ..+,:, .....
•• +.
•
M
0
:z 1000
• ~.I:
200
0
11 •<t.•• • • • 500
0 •
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
r Precip. Precip.
( "
r
1400 3000
,
1200.
• 2500
••
N
0
1000.
BOO
S 2000
1 ~ 600. ~0 1500
0
:z 400 • :z 1000
200 • 500
••• •
0 • 0
10 20 30 40 10 20 30 40 50
Max Temp Max Temp
r-~
i 1400
• 3000
\ 1200 2500
• ••
S 1000
BOO
N
0 2000
~ • ~0 1500 •
[ 0
:z
600
400
200
\
z 1000
500
0 0
.10 -5 5 10 15 20 25 -5 0 10 15 20 25 30
I Min Temp Min Temp
L
1400 3000
r - N
0
1200
1000
BOO
•
• 2500
S 2000
z
..
2:
• •
•• M
1500 • •
M
0
600
400
\.
0 1000 • • • +.
Z Z • • • +.
[: 200
0
-5 10 15 20 25 30
500 -
5 10
~.
.·.~U+f,'>..~~/~w ~!t ~.b·
15
I.~
20 25 30 35
Ave Temp Ave Temp
[i
for the Little Washita River watershed.
f
l
I '
53
1400 3000
•
1200
• 2500
•
C'I 1000 - • S 2000_ •
0 800 • • •
~
Z
;;; 600 - • •• • • • •
1500 • •
0
Z 400 _
• 0
Z
1000 •
500
200
0_ 0_
• •
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.2
1400 3000
•
••
1200 2500
C'I 1000
0 S 2000 • •
Z
;;;
800
600 _ S+ • , • Z
;;; 1500 _ • •
• ••
0
Z 400
0
Z
1000 -
• , • • ••
. \,..
200 500 _
I ••• •
0 0 •• ~
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
1400 3000
•
1200 -
• 2500 _
•
C'I 1000 _
0 800 _
• C'I
0 2000 •
• ••
~
Z
;;; 1500 •
0
600
400
0 1000 • •
Z Z
200 _
0
500
0
• : ••+ ....•y .,
0 2 4 6 10 0 4 6 10
Figure 3e (Cont'd.) Simulated monthly nitrate/nitrite yield vs. monthly climate input
54
i,I
i
\
6. IMPLICATIONS FOR MODEL
,r CALIBRATION AND ApPLICATION
These sensitivity analyses of SWAT served two purposes. (1) They provided
guidance for calibrating the SWAT input parameters and (2) they delineated the most
j I
important climate parameters for simulating the effects of climate change on the water
I quantity and quality of three very diverse rural watersheds.
Calibration
The best parameter for calibrating SWAT for monthly streamflow will usually be
the SCS runoff curve number. In the case of a forested watershed) the parameters related
to forest ET, maximum leaf area index and the initial soil concentration of the nutrients
that limit forest growth, will be useful as well. The sensitivity of streamflow (and,
therefore, of water quality) to land use implies that the simulated streamflow and water
quality should be calibrated only after the dominant land use for each subbasin is
determined as accurately as possible.
Calibration of SWAT for sediment yield can be done using the parameters that
govern sediment routing (the routing channel MUSLE cover factor, routing channel
erodibility, and potential stream bed degradation coefficient and/or exponent), provided
that the "normal concentration" parameters for suspended sediment in lakes, wetlands,
and groundwater return flow are in realistic ranges.
To calibrate the SWAT simulations of total phosphorus and ammonia/organic N,

the initial concentrations of organic P and organic N in the surface layer and the land
management practices, such as spring plowing or fertilizing with manure will be the most
useful. Nitrate/nitrite yields) however, will not always be responsive to the same input
parameters. In a watershed where no fertilizers are used, such as a forested watershed,
the initial organic N concentration in the soil will be the most useful for calibration, but in
an agricultural watershed, the amount of chemical fertilizer applied to the watershed will
li be the most useful.
Simulation of Climate Change Effects

i\ I' Overall, the streamflow and water quality in the Baptism River (MN) watershed
, )
were most influenced by air temperature and precipitation. Precipitation was the best
predictor for changes in streamflow and water quality in the Cottonwood River (MN)
I I '
watershed. Temperature was also a good predictor for some of the water quality. Soil
i
I
water, which reflects the precipitation and temperature input from past months was as
I i good or better at predicting changes in streamflow and water quality as precipitation and
55
temperature. For both the Baptism and Cottonwood River watersheds, the importance of
air temperature was much lower in the 2xC02 simulation because of the decrease in the
importance of snowmelt.
It should be noted that the sensitivity of SWAT's output to temperature would

have been missed in this error analysis if only linear relationships (i.e., r2) had been used
to calculate the influence of the climate parameters. Non-linear relationships were
required to measure the influence of air temperature on the SWAT simulations of
streamflow and water quality.
The most important input variable for the Little Washita River (OK) watershed
was precipitation. Temperature was not nearly as important for explaining variation in
the water quality and quantity as it was in the two Minnesota watersheds, but soil water
was as important for the Little Washita as it was for the Cottonwood River watershed.
Therefore, when making projections of the impact of future climate scenarios on rural
watersheds, it is most important to correctly project the change in precipitation. In
watersheds where snowmelt plays a significant role in the hydrologic budget, it is also
important that changes in temperature be projected correctly.
56
7. CONCLUSIONS
The SWAT simulations of streamflow and water quality can be calibrated to three
very different watersheds with a small number of its input parameters (Tables 1, 2, and
3). Streamflow in the two agricultural watersheds can be calibrated with the runoff curve
--,
, numbers and the effective hydraulic conductivity of the routing channels and streamflow
I in the forested watershed can be calibrated with the maximum leaf area index and nutrient
concentrations in the soil. Sediment yield can be calibrated with the sediment routing
)i parameters, provided that the parameters for the normal concentration in ponds, wetlands,
and groundwater return flow are in realistic ranges. Nutrient yields can be calibrated with
the initial concentrations in the top soil layer and with land management practices such as
1-
fertilization and plowing.
li
When using error analysis to measure the influence of the model input parameters
r;
. I
on various model outputs, both linear and non-linear relationships must be taken into
I i
L account. If only the square of the correlation coefficient, r2, is used to measure influence,
some important variables could easily be missed.
(
l. __ When using SWAT to project the impact of future climate scenarios on rural
watersheds, it is most important to correctly project the change in precipitation. In
watersheds where snowmelt plays a significant role in the hydrologic budget, it is also
important that changes in temperature be projected correctly. Unfortunately, current
GeM's are not very good at simulating precipitation distribution (Lau et al., 1996).
Therefore, the research being conducted to improve the GeM simulations should be
continued until the models are able to accurately simulate both precipitation and
u temperature.
Finally, because the SWAT simulations of water quality were sometimes more
sensitive to changes in land management than to changes in temperature or precipitation,
[j projections of climate change effects must be interpreted carefully. The changes due to
land management practices could surpass any anticipated change in water quality due to
climate change. Therefore, it may be more important to achieve proper land management
practices through education and/or regulation.
I I
57
8. REFERENCES
Allen, P.B. and lW. Naney. 1991. Hydrology of the Little Washita River Watershed,
Oklahoma. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, ARS-
90, Durant, Oklahoma, 74 pp.
Arnold, IG., Williams, J.R, Srinivasan, R, King, K.W., and Griggs, RH. 1994. SWAT
- Soil and Water Assessment Tool- User Manual. USDA, Agricultural Research
Service, Grassland, Soil and Water Research Laboratory~ 808 East Blackland
Road, Temple, TX 76502,300 pp.
Arnold, IG., Allen, P.M., and Bernhardt, G. 1993. A comprehensive surface-

groundwater flow modeL J. Hydrol. 142:47-69.
Arnold, J.G., Williams, J.R, Nicks, A.D., and Sammons, N.B. 1990. SWRRB: A Basin
Scale§imulation Modelfor Soil and Water Resources Management. Texas A&M
University Press, College Station, Texas, 204 pp.
Bartell, S.M., lE. Breck, RH. Gardner, and A.L. Brenkert. 1986. Individual parameter
. perturbation and error analysis of fish bioenergetics models. Can. J. Fish. Aquat.
Sci. 43:160-168.
Boer, G.J., McFarlane, N.A. and Lazare, M.: 1992. Greenhouse gas-induced climate
change simulated with the CCC second-generation general circulation modeL J
Climate 5:1045-1077.
Broussard, W.L., H.W. Anderson, Jr., and D.R FarrelL 1973. Water resources of the
Cottonwood River watershed, southwestern Minnesota. Hydrologic
Investigations Atlas HA-466. U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the
Interior, Washington, D.C.
CERL. 1988. GRASS Reference Manual. U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers, Construction
Engineering Research Laboratory, Champaign, Illinois.
Gardner, RH., RV. O'Neill, lB. Mankin, and IH. Carney. 1981. A comparison of
sensitivity analysis and error analysis based on a stream ecosystem modeL Ecol.
Modelling 12:173-190.
Hanratty, M.P. and H.G. Stefan. 1997a. Simulating .the effect of climate change on a
northern forested watershed. Submitted to J. AWRA.
58
I' Hanratty, M.P. and H.G. Stefan. 1997b. Projecting the effects of climate change on the
hydrology and water quality of a southern agricultural watershed. Submitted to
Agricultural Water Management.
Hanratty, M.P. and H.G. Stefan. 1997c. Simulating climate change effects in a
Minnesota agricultural watershed. Submitted to Journal of Environmental
Quality.
Hanratty, M.P. 1995. Modeling Climate Change Effects on Non~point Source Pollutant
Runoff from Rural Watersheds: A Review of Available Models. University of
Minnesota St. Anthony Falls Laboratory Project Report 380 (Revised), 51 pp.
I I
Lau, K.-M., J.H. Kim and Y. Sud. 1996. Comparison of hydrologic processes in AMIP
GCMs. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc. 77:2209-2227.
i-
McCuen, R.H. and W.M. Snyder. 1986. Hydrologic Modeling; Statistical Methods and
[, Applications, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 568 pp.
McFarlane, N.A., Boer, G.l, Blanchet, l-P., and Lazare, M.: 1992. The Canadian
Climate Centre second-generation general circulation model and its equilibrium
f-' climate. J Climate 5:1013-1044.
McKay, M.D. 1988. Sensitivity and uncertainty analysis using a statistical sample of
\_1 input values. In: Y. Ronen (Ed.), Uncertainty Analysis, CRC Press, Boca Raton,
Florida, pp. 145-186.
[i Mulla, D.J. and A.P. Mallawatantri. 1997. Minnesota River Agricultural Resources and
Research World Wide Web Site. URL: http://www.soils.agri.mn.edulresearch/
Ii mn-riverl
Nash, lE. ahd Sutcliffe, lE. 1970. River flow forecasting through conceptual models,
II Part 1 -- A discussion of principles. J. Hydrol., 10:282-290.
Srinivasan, R. and Arnold, J.G. 1994. Integration of a basin-scale water quality model
t~J
with GIS. Water Res. Bull. 30:453-462.
l_i
I I
, I'
59

SWAT For Climate Change Effects

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

SWAT For Climate Change Effects

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA

ST. ANTHONY FALLS LABORATORY

Project Report No. 409

< I Sensitivity Analysis of the Soil and Water

GRAZING LAND RESEARCH LABORATORY

MID-CONTINENT ECOLOGY DIVISION

Project Report No. 409

Sensitivity Analysis of the Soil and Water

MID-CONTINENT ECOLOGY DIVISION

Prepared for: USDA, Agricultural Research Service

L, sediment routing parameters, total P and ammonia/organic N yields to land management

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .............".......................... ,.............. ,................................ "...... ii

LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................... ,.......... ,.. ,., ............................. iv

1. INTROD UCTION ., ....... ".......................... ,............. ,........ ,.................................... !IJ • • • • "." 1

2. MODEL DESCRIPTION ........................ "...... "... !!! •••••• !!! •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 2

r 3. SITE DESCRIPTIONS ...................................................... ,.... ,....................................3

r 5. INFLUENCE OF CLIMATE PARAMETERS ........................................................ 14

7. CONCLUSIONS ................................................................... ,.. !!! •••••••••••••••• e ••••• !!! •••••••••••• 57

Figure Ie Simulated monthly ammonia/organic N yield (kg/day) vs. monthly climate

Figure 2e Simulated monthly ammonia/organic nitrogen yield vs. monthly climate

Table 1 Comparison of the Baptism, Little Washita, and Cottonwood River

As part of a research project on the potential effects of climate change on aquatic

Srinivasan and Arnold (1994) have created a geographic information system

Table 1 Comparison of the Baptism, Little Washita, and Cottonwood River

average annual 730 728 666

average annual 449 47 86

average annual air 2.8 16.6 6.9

average annual dew -1.2 7.6 0.7

land use mixed forest rangeland, rangeland, cropland

Little Washita River Watershed

Baptism River Watershed

Since Minnesota' $ Baptism River watershed is almost entirely covered by forest,

Simulated streamflow was also very sensitive (larger magnitude) to the

Finally, simulated monthly streamflow changed at a smaller magnitude than the

Most of the phosphorus in the Baptism River was transported as sediment-

Cottonwood River Watershed

The simulated hydrology of the Cottonwood River watershed in Minnesota was

A change in the saturated conductivity of the soil produced a stnaller magnitude

The sensitivities of nutrient and sediment yields to various parameters are

Table 4 Sensitivity analysis of the SWAT simulation of the Cottonwood River

Sensitivity to Land Use/Land Cover

Land Use Permutations

1- Monthly SE(nun) 3.56 5.99 3.16 3.01

2xC02 Precip 0.38$ 0.20 0.24 0.36$ 0.02$

2xC02 Rainfall 0.47 0.48 0.48 0.04 0.37 -0.20

·20 -10 0 10 20 30 -10 0 10 20 30 40

-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 -20 .10 0 10 20

-20 -10 0 10 20 -20 -10 0 10 20 30

.20 ·10 0 10 20 ·10 0 10 20

[j Min Temp Min Temp

2 5 0 r - - - - - - - , - - - -_ _r-_ 350 .--------,r-----------,

Figure Ie Simulated monthly ammonia/organic N yield (kg/day) vs. monthly climate

Figure Ie (Cont'd.) Simulated monthly ammonia/organic N yield (kg/day) vs. monthly

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.6 1.2

Figure Ie (Cont'd.) Simulated monthly nitrate/nitrite yield (kg/day) vs. monthly

Cottonwood River Watershed

The statistics comparing monthly climate parameters to monthly SWAT output

In the 2xC02 simulation, warmer air temperatures led to a decline in the

2xC02 Precip. 0.44 0.36 0.11 0.27 0.03

2xC02 Rainfall 0.49 0.54 0.51 -0.06 0.41 -0.13

0 60 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250

9000 ,.-________--,____-::______••,.-------., 3000 ,.-_ _.,-_ _ _ _ _ _ _-.--_ _ __,

-30 -20 -10 a 10 20 -20 -10 o 10 20 30

9000 ,.-__--,-::••,.-------., 3000 ,.-_ _.,-_ _ _ _ _ _ _-.--_ _ __,

9000 ,.-__-,---:;,.-:<'"""--, 3000 . -, --..;-,