JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION

AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION

INTRODUCTION TO SWAT+, A COMPLETELY RESTRUCTURED VERSION OF THE SOIL

AND WATER ASSESSMENT TOOL1

Katrin Bieger, Jeffrey G. Arnold, Hendrik Rathjens, Michael J. White, David D. Bosch, Peter M. Allen,
Martin Volk, and Raghavan Srinivasan2

ABSTRACT: SWAT+ is a completely restructured version of the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT)
that was developed to face present and future challenges in water resources modeling and management and
to meet the needs of the worldwide user community. It is expected to improve code development and main-
tenance; support data availability, analysis, and visualization; and enhance the model’s capabilities in terms
of the spatial representation of elements and processes within watersheds. The most important change is
the implementation of landscape units and flow and pollutant routing across the landscape. Also, SWAT+
offers more flexibility than SWAT in defining management schedules, routing constituents, and connecting
managed flow systems to the natural stream network. To test the basic hydrologic function of SWAT+, it
was applied to the Little River Experimental Watershed (Georgia) without enhanced overland routing and
compared with previous models. SWAT+ gave similar results and inaccuracies as these models did for
streamflow and water balance. Taking full advantage of the new capabilities of SWAT+ regarding watershed
discretization and landscape and river interactions is expected to improve simulations in future studies.
While many capabilities of SWAT have already been enhanced in SWAT+ and new capabilities have been
added, the model will continue to evolve in response to advancements in scientific knowledge and the
demands of the growing worldwide user community. Editor’s note: This paper is part of the featured series
on SWAT Applications for Emerging Hydrologic and Water Quality Challenges. See the February 2017 issue
for the introduction and background to the series.

(KEY TERMS: watershed management; computational methods; simulation; watersheds; rivers/streams.)

Bieger, Katrin, Jeffrey G. Arnold, Hendrik Rathjens, Michael J. White, David D. Bosch, Peter M. Allen, Martin
Volk, and Raghavan Srinivasan, 2016. Introduction to SWAT+, a Completely Restructured Version of the Soil
and Water Assessment Tool. Journal of the American Water Resources Association (JAWRA) 1-16. DOI: 10.1111/
1752-1688.12482

1
Paper No. JAWRA-16-0088-P of the Journal of the American Water Resources Association (JAWRA). Received April 11, 2016; accepted
September 23, 2016. © 2016 American Water Resources Association. Discussions are open until six months from issue publication.
2
Assistant Research Scientist (Bieger), Blackland Research and Extension Center, Texas A&M AgriLife, 808 E. Blackland Road, Temple,
Texas 76502; Research Agricultural Engineer (Arnold, White), Grassland, Soil and Water Research Laboratory, USDA Agricultural Research
Service, Temple, Texas 76502; Postdoctoral Research Associate (Rathjens), Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences, Purdue University,
West Lafayette, Indiana 47907; Research Hydraulic Engineer (Bosch), Southeast Watershed Research Laboratory, USDA Agricultural
Research Service, Tifton, Georgia 31794; Professor (Allen), Department of Geology, Baylor University, Waco, Texas 76798; Professor (Volk),
Department of Computational Landscape Ecology, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research—UFZ, 04318 Leipzig, Germany; and Pro-
fessor (Srinivasan), Department of Ecosystem Sciences and Management, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843 (E-Mail/Bie-
ger: kbieger@brc.tamus.edu).

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION 1 JAWRA

 BIEGER, ARNOLD, RATHJENS, WHITE, BOSCH, ALLEN, VOLK,
INTRODUCTION
Over the past 20 years, the Soil and Water Assess-
ment Tool (SWAT) (Arnold et al., 1998) has become
one of the most widely used hydrologic models in the
world and has been applied in many watersheds
across the globe. The model was created in the early
1990s by merging SWRRB (Williams et al., 1985;
Arnold and Williams, 1987) and ROTO (Arnold et al.,
1995). A large body of peer-reviewed literature
demonstrates that SWAT is an effective and compre-
hensive tool for simulating streamflow and pollutant
transport across a wide range of spatial and temporal
scales, environmental conditions, land management
practices, and land use and climate change scenarios
(Arnold and Fohrer, 2005; Gassman et al., 2007,
2010, 2014; Krysanova and Arnold, 2008; Douglas-
Mankin et al., 2010; Tuppad et al., 2011). Among the
foundational strengths of SWAT are that it combines
land processes including plant growth and detailed
land management with channel processes, the inte-
gration of multiple environmental processes and pol-
lutants, its publically available code, the strong
technical model support, and the availability of sev-
eral interface tools and other software supporting the
pre- and postprocessing of data and the construction,
parametrization, and calibration of SWAT models
(Gassman et al., 2007, 2014). While the various
SWAT applications across the globe have demon-
strated the model’s flexibility and effectiveness in
assessing water quantity and quality problems, they
have also revealed several weaknesses and limita-
tions of the model and identified model development
needs. Over the past 20 years, the model’s capabili-
ties have already been expanded considerably (Wil-
liams et al., 2008) and several issues have been
addressed by the core SWAT development group as
well as collaborating scientists all over the world,
resulting in more accurate simulation of individual
processes, regional adaptations to specific environ-
mental conditions, or linkages of SWAT with other
models (Gassman et al., 2007). However, recent
SWAT applications reported in the peer-reviewed lit-
erature still point to a number of specific modifica-
tions and improvements that are needed to further
enhance the model’s capabilities and overcome limita-
tions. Also, the numerous additions to and modifica-
tions in the model have made the code increasingly
difficult to manage and maintain.
There is an urgent need for governments and
stakeholders to address water quantity and quality
issues in the context of global change, which is posing
new challenges for hydrologic modelers and putting
JAWRA
AND SRINIVASAN
increasing pressure on models in terms of speed and
accuracy (Arnold et al., 2010). In response to the
needs of various government agencies, SWAT is
increasingly being used as a tool to aid watershed
planning and environmental policy development, par-
ticularly in the United States (U.S.) and the Euro-
pean Union (Gassman et al., 2007). The U.S. Clean
Water Act and the European Water Framework
Directive require the quantification of pollutant loads
to water bodies and the development of effective
approaches to meet water quality standards or goals.
SWAT is frequently used to identify critical source
areas (CSAs) of pollution and to provide an estimate
of the impact of conservation practices on water qual-
ity at the watershed scale (Arabi et al., 2008). How-
ever, SWAT uses hydrologic response units (HRUs),
which are lumped areas within a subbasin with a
unique combination of land use, soil type, and slope,
for simulating all hydrologic processes occurring in
the landscape. While this approach to watershed dis-
cretization makes the model computationally effi-
cient, it hampers precise identification of CSAs and
placement of conservation practices within a sub-
basin. In addition, the HRU water and pollutant
yields are summed at subbasin level and added
directly to the stream. Accordingly, transport and
deposition processes in the landscape are not explic-
itly accounted for. This was already identified as one
of the main limitations of SWAT more than 10 years
ago (Arnold and Fohrer, 2005). Krysanova and Arnold
(2008) state that flow and pollutants need to be rou-
ted across the landscape from hilltop to valley bottom
using readily available data and with sufficient effi-
ciency to simulate large river basins. Gassman et al.
(2007) point out that “a major challenge of the ongo-
ing evolution of the model will be meeting the desire
for additional spatial complexity while maintaining
ease of model use.”
To face present and future challenges in water
resources modeling and management and to meet the
needs of the growing worldwide user community, the
SWAT code has undergone major modifications over
the past few years, resulting in SWAT+, a completely
revised version of the model. SWAT+ is far more flex-
ible than SWAT in terms of the spatial representa-
tion of interactions and processes within a watershed.
Even though the basic algorithms used to calculate
the processes in the model have not changed, the
structure and organization of both the code and the
input files have been modified considerably. Despite
the additional spatial complexity, the structural
changes in the code are expected to facilitate model
maintenance, future code modifications, and foster
collaboration with other researchers to integrate new
2 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION
 INTRODUCTION TO SWAT+, A COMPLETELY RESTRUCTURED VERSION OF THE SOIL AND WATER ASSESSMENT TOOL

science into SWAT modules and algorithms. The
advancement of the model is expected to continue as
the worldwide user community and the number of
innovative applications are continuing to grow.
Currently, the SWAT+ code and input files are
tested extensively in several watersheds across the
U.S., where the hydrologic results from SWAT+ com-
pare favorably with those from previous models. The
purpose of this study is to introduce the SWAT com-
munity to the new capabilities of the model and to
present a first application of SWAT+ to the Little
River Experimental Watershed in Georgia, U.S.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Watershed Configuration in SWAT+
SWAT+ is considerably more flexible than SWAT
with regard to the watershed discretization and con-
figuration. HRUs, aquifers, channels, reservoirs,
ponds, and point sources and inlets are separate spa-
tial objects, whose hydrologic interaction can be so
defined by the user as to represent the physical char-
acteristics of a watershed as realistically as possible.
The conceptual configuration of HRUs is different in
SWAT+ than in SWAT. Although HRUs are still not
spatially referenced, they are now defined as a con-
tiguous area, i.e., a representative field, with an asso-
ciated, user-defined length and width. Edge-of-field
runoff and pollutant loads are computed for the con-
tiguous area. The actual area of the HRU, calculated
based on GIS inputs, is applied as an expansion fac-
tor to determine total runoff and loadings. Subbasins
are still delineated during model construction in
SWAT+, but subsequently they are divided into water
areas and one or more landscape units (LSUs) (Fig-
ure 1). All areas that are identified in the land use or
soil map as water have to be defined as either a pond
or a reservoir. When ponds or reservoirs are not rep-
resented on the land use or soil map, but added man-
ually to the watershed in SWAT+, their area as
specified by the user is subtracted from the subbasin
area to avoid accounting for those areas twice. The
main reason for treating the water areas in a sub-
basin as separate spatial objects in SWAT+ is that
the parameterization of water HRUs has always been
a problem in SWAT. The land areas within a sub-
basin are represented in SWAT+ by one or more
LSUs, which are subdivided into HRUs. A typical
approach would be to divide the land areas within
the subbasins into upland areas and floodplains, but
it is also possible to define more than two LSUs. The
HRU output is aggregated at the LSU level. The only

FIGURE 1. Conceptual Flow Paths of Water between the Most Important Spatial Objects in SWAT+. AQU, aquifer; CHA, channel; HRU,
hydrologic response unit; LSU, landscape unit; PND, pond; RES, reservoir; LAT, lateral flow; OVB, overbank flow; RHG, recharge; SUR,
surface runoff; TOT, total flow.

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION 3 JAWRA

 BIEGER, ARNOLD, RATHJENS, WHITE, BOSCH, ALLEN, VOLK,
properties LSUs have are topographic characteristics,
which are needed to calculate the time of concentra-
tion. While they are typically composed of HRUs,
other spatial objects can also be elements within a
LSU as long as their area fractions add up to one. All
elements within a watershed that are part of a LSU
must be listed in a LSU element file. For each LSU,
the numbers of the elements that it is composed of
are specified in a LSU definition file, which refers to
the element file. As an alternative to the subbasin,
LSU, and HRU approach, SWAT+ also allows the
user to select a grid-based model setup.
SWAT+ has also incorporated greater flexibility in
defining aquifers, reservoirs, and channels. Aquifers
are no longer tied to HRUs like they used to be in
SWAT. The user can define any number of aquifers,
whose boundaries do not have to coincide with the
boundaries of HRUs, LSUs, or subbasins. In addition,
a new option available in SWAT+ is to use MOD-
FLOW for simulating groundwater processes. Reser-
voirs no longer have to be placed on the main
channel, even though that is where they are typically
expected to be located, and they are no longer
required to be located at a subbasin outlet. They can
interact with any other spatial object, so water can
not only be routed from the upstream channel to a
reservoir and on to the downstream channel but can
also enter the reservoir directly from the landscape
and aquifers. Reservoirs, ponds, and channels in
SWAT+ have enhanced capabilities to interact with
the surrounding landscape and aquifers (Figure 1).
Additional spatial objects that have been intro-
duced to SWAT+ are outlets, canals, pumps, animal
herds, and water rights, all of which are giving the
user new possibilities to improve the simulation of
anthropogenic uses of land and water resources. Out-
lets can be used to remove water from the system or
to sum up the output from two or more watersheds,
e.g., when the total amounts of water and pollutants
from all streams discharging into an ocean or reser-
voir are of interest rather than the contribution of
each individual stream. Canals can either be rela-
tively small irrigation canals or larger canals that are
mostly used for navigation and regional water diver-
sions. Pumps extract water from an aquifer, reser-
voir, or channel and add it to any spatial object in
the watershed. For herds and water rights, the user
has to define units of HRUs. Herds can be moved
around within that collection of HRUs based on user-
defined criteria, e.g., the amount of biomass available
for grazing. Each HRU within a water rights unit
has to be assigned a water demand and a water right
that determines how much water it receives in any
time step. The amount of water available is depen-
dent on the supplying spatial objects, which supply
either a constant percentage of their total flow or a
JAWRA
AND SRINIVASAN
varying percentage that is controlled by user-defined
criteria.
For simulating HRUs and channels, SWAT+ offers
three levels of complexity. The regular HRUs and
channels correspond to the old SWAT. However, as
the parameterization of HRUs and channels in SWAT
can be very challenging for large areas or ungauged
watersheds, the user can now choose to simulate sim-
plified versions of HRUs and channels called HRU-lte
and channel-lte. The lowest level of complexity is
using user-defined export coefficients and delivery
ratios instead of simulating HRU and channel pro-
cesses, respectively. Depending on the objectives of a
modeling study, it is also possible to use different
levels of complexity for different parts of the water-
shed. Table 1 summarizes all spatial objects currently
implemented in SWAT+.
Spatial Connections
Each spatial object has a connect file that allows
the user to specify where to send its output. Techni-
cally, it is possible to send output from any spatial
object to any other spatial object. Accordingly, water
and chemicals can be routed across the landscape,
either at the LSU or at the HRU level. This makes it
easier to connect managed flow systems, e.g., irriga-
tion canals, to the natural stream network.
TABLE 1. SWAT+ Spatial Objects and Their Function in the
Watershed Configuration.
Spatial Object Function in the Model Configuration
HRU Complex simulation of land phase processes
HRU-lte Simplified simulation of land phase processes
Export coefficient Replacement of simulation of land phase
processes
LSU Aggregation of HRU output
Ponds/reservoirs Simulation of impoundment processes
Aquifer Simulation of groundwater processes using
SWAT+ algorithms
MODFLOW Simulation of groundwater processes using
MODFLOW
Channel Complex simulation of instream processes
Channel-lte Simulation of instream processes accounting
for channel degradation
Delivery ratio Replacement of simulation of instream
processes
Inlet/point source Addition of flow and pollutant loads from
external sources (recall)
Canal Redistribution of water
Pump Extraction of water from aquifers or surface
water bodies
Water rights Collection of HRUs with user-defined
water rights
Animal herd Collection of HRUs used to move around an
animal herd
Note: HRU, hydrologic response unit; LSU, landscape unit.
4 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION
 INTRODUCTION TO SWAT+, A COMPLETELY RESTRUCTURED VERSION
Furthermore, the output is split into different hydro-
graphs, which do not necessarily have to be sent to
the same spatial object (Figure 1). The number and
types of hydrographs that are differentiated depend
on the spatial object (Table 2).
For HRUs and LSUs, total flow is defined as the
sum of surface runoff, lateral flow, and tile flow. This
definition of total flow for HRUs and LSUs lets the
user send these three flow components together from
the spatial object where the flow is generated to the
receiving spatial object instead of having to send all
hydrographs separately. Also, SWAT+ allows for
sending fractions of hydrographs to any number of
spatial objects, e.g., a certain percentage of surface
runoff from one LSU to an adjacent LSU and the rest
to a channel. Total flow from HRUs and LSUs does
not include seepage, which is generally assumed to
recharge the underlying aquifer(s).
SWAT+ Input Files
Besides a connect file, each spatial object has a
data file that either directly contains its parameters
or that points to a number of other files, each of
which contains selected parameters for the spatial
object. The overall structure of SWAT input files is
similar to that of a relational database. In all the
data files, there is one line for each spatial object
(e.g., one line for each HRU or channel) and one col-
umn for each parameter or pointer, which acts as a
primary or foreign key, providing a relationship with
other tables. For example, the HRU data file points
to several other files that contain information about
topography, hydrology, soils, land use and manage-
ment, soil nutrients, surface storage, and snow. Simi-
larly, the channel parameters are saved in separate
files for channel initialization, hydrology, sediment,
nutrients, and pesticides, each of which the main
channel data file points to. The total number of files
needed for a SWAT+ model is independent of the
watershed size and the number of spatial objects in
the watershed. Larger, more complex watersheds
simply require more lines in each input file. All
TABLE 2. SWAT+ Spatial Objects and Their Output Hydrographs.
Spatial Object Total Flow Surface Runoff
HRU x x
LSU x x
Pond/reservoir x x
Aquifer x
Channel x x
Inlet/point source x
Canal x x
Pump x
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION
OF THE SOIL AND WATER ASSESSMENT TOOL
SWAT+ files are free format, so they can easily be
opened and edited in any spreadsheet program or
text editor.
Land Cover and Management
The structure and organization of the land use and
management files in SWAT+ is very different from
SWAT (Figure 2). There is a main land use file that
contains general management parameters and a
number of pointers to several other files: a plant com-
munity file, a management schedule file, a Curve
Number table, the urban database, and separate files
for each conservation practice or structural operation.
In this file, the user can specify any combination of
land cover and land use, management schedules, and
structural operations to represent the individual land
use and management in the HRUs. The land use col-
umn in the HRU data file points to the appropriate
entry in the land use file.
In SWAT+, it is possible to have two or more
plants or crops growing at the same time by defining
a plant community in the plant community file. For
each community, its name and number of plants have
to be specified before the individual crops are defined
by pointing to the plant database. The crops and
other plants in a community do not necessarily have
to grow at the same time. The plant community file
can also be used to group crops that are planted in
rotation.
The timing of the planting and harvesting of the
individual crops in the community is controlled in the
management schedule file. All management schedules
for all HRUs are listed in one management schedule
file. For each management schedule, the first line
specifies the name of the schedule and the number of
scheduled operations. It is followed by one line per
operation specifying its type and timing. Depending
on the type of management operation, the manage-
ment schedule file points to different databases or
management operations files (Figure 2). As in SWAT,
a fixed date or heat unit fraction can be specified
for scheduling the management operations.
Lateral Flow Tile Flow Seepage Overbank Flow
x x x
x x x
x
x
x
5 JAWRA
 BIEGER, ARNOLD, RATHJENS, WHITE, BOSCH, ALLEN, VOLK,
FIGURE 2. Organization of the Land Cover and Management Files in SWAT+.
Alternatively, decision tables can be used to define
rule sets that allow for a more flexible and realistic
timing of management operations. For example, til-
lage operations can be scheduled depending on soil
moisture conditions, the timing of nitrogen fertilizer
applications can be based on nitrogen stress and heat
units, and the planting of crops can be controlled by
soil moisture, heat units, and the year in the crop
rotation.
Simulating Constituents
Constituents that can be simulated in SWAT+
include pesticides, pathogens, salt, and metals. Each
of these has a data and a community file, which
resemble the plant database and the plant commu-
nity file. Accordingly, the user can specify suites of as
many pesticides, pathogens, salt ions, and metals as
desired and each spatial object in the watershed can
point to these suites of constituents. If a constituent
is supposed to be routed to the watershed outlet, the
user is responsible for making sure that all relevant
objects point to a suite that includes that constituent.
The simulation of sediment and nutrients has not
JAWRA
AND SRINIVASAN
changed compared to SWAT and the instream water
quality is still simulated in SWAT+ using QUAL2E
(Brown and Barnwell, 1987) algorithms.
Printing Output
SWAT+ offers a lot of flexibility with regard to sav-
ing the simulation output. In an output print file, the
users can specify for HRUs, LSUs, and the entire
basin, which output (water balance, nutrient balance,
losses, and plant and weather) they want to print at
which time step. Regardless of the time step selected,
SWAT+ will always print an average annual output
file for water balance, nutrient balance, losses, and
plant and weather at HRU, LSU, and basin level.
Also, a reach, an aquifer, a reservoir, a soil, and a
management output file can be printed at the desired
time step. In addition, there is an object print file,
where any number of output files can be added by
specifying a file name, the type and number of object
for which output is to be printed, and the type of
hydrograph to be printed. All SWAT+ output files fit
a consistent database format and can easily be loaded
in any text editor, spreadsheet, or database software.
6 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION
 INTRODUCTION TO SWAT+, A COMPLETELY RESTRUCTURED VERSION
Calibration
For calibration, there is a new file included in
SWAT+ that can be used to update parameters with-
out having to change them in their respective input
files. The inclusion of all calibration parameter adjust-
ments within a single file allows rapid model adjust-
ment, faster calibration, and better tracking of
modified parameters. For calibration parameters, the
desired change (e.g., new value, additive, or multi-
plicative change) and the spatial objects subject to the
changes are specified. If a parameter is included in
the calibration file, the model will override the value
specified in the original respective data file, based on
this information. Future versions of autocalibration
programs like SWAT-CUP (Abbaspour, 2013) will also
use this file instead of modifying the original files.
Study Area
The 334 km2 large Little River Experimental
Watershed (LREW) is located in the Upper Suwannee
River Basin in the Coastal Plain Physiographic Pro-
vince near Tifton in South-Central Georgia (Sheri-
dan, 1997). Because the LREW is a U.S. Department
of Agriculture Agricultural Research Service (USDA-
ARS) regional experimental watershed established in
the late 1960s, long-term hydrologic and climatic data
are available (Bosch et al., 2007). The climate in the
LREW is humid subtropical with long, hot, humid
summers and short, mild winters (Bosch et al., 1999).
The average annual precipitation is 1,208  214 mm
and the annual mean temperature is 19.1°C. The
LREW is characterized by broad floodplains and
gently sloping uplands. Elevations range from 82 to
148 m a.s.l. Bosch et al. (2006) estimate that the per-
centages of forest, agricultural land, urban areas, and
water are 50, 41, 7, and 2%, respectively. The domi-
nating agricultural crops are cotton, peanuts, and
corn. Upland forests consist of pine, whereas the
dense riparian vegetation in the floodplains consists
TABLE 3. SWAT+ Input Data Used for the Little River Experimental Watershed Model Setup.
Data Resolution
Topography 30 m
Land use 30 m
Soil 30 m
Climate 1 station
Note: USDA-NRCS, U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service; NOAA-NCEI, National Oceanic and Atmo-
spheric Administration-National Centers for Environmental Information.
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION
OF THE SOIL AND WATER ASSESSMENT TOOL
of a mix of hardwoods and evergreens. Typical soil
types in the LREW are loamy sands and sandy loams
(Sullivan et al., 2007). According to Feyereisen et al.
(2007), there are no permitted point source dis-
charges in the watershed.
Model Setup and Calibration for the LREW
The data used to construct the SWAT+ model for
the LREW are summarized in Table 3. A total of 245
subbasins were delineated based on the Digital Ele-
vation Model (DEM). To keep the setup simple and
comparable to previous studies in the LREW, the
subbasins were not subdivided into upland and flood-
plain areas. No thresholds were set for the HRU defi-
nition, so it resulted in a relatively large number of
6,315 HRUs. A simple crop rotation including cotton,
corn, and peanuts was implemented for all agricul-
tural areas in the watershed. While precipitation and
temperature data measured at the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) weather
station C098703 in Tifton were used, relative humid-
ity, solar radiation, and wind speed were simulated
using the weather generator integrated in SWAT and
SWAT+. For the calculation of potential evapotrans-
piration (ET), the Hargreaves equation was chosen,
and channel routing was calculated using the Musk-
ingum routing method.
Average daily streamflow data at the main water-
shed outlet were obtained from the USDA-ARS
Southeast Watershed Research Laboratory in Tifton,
Georgia (Bosch and Sheridan, 2007) and used for cali-
brating and validating the model. The model was cal-
ibrated for the years 1993 through 2002 and
validated for the years 2003 through 2012. The first
year of simulation was 1988 to allow for a five-year
warm-up period. Calibration included only a small
number of parameters: the surface runoff lag time
(SURLAG), the alpha factor for the groundwater
recession curve (ALPHA_BF), the time required for
water leaving the bottom of the root zone to reach
Source
U.S. Geological Survey, National Elevation Data
Accessed January 22, 2015, https://gdg.sc.egov.usda.gov/
U.S. Geological Survey, National Land Cover Data (NLCD 2011)
Accessed January 22, 2015, https://gdg.sc.egov.usda.gov/
USDA-NRCS, Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO)
Accessed January 22, 2015, https://gdg.sc.egov.usda.gov/
NOAA-NCEI, Historical Climate Data
Accessed January 22, 2015, https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/
7 JAWRA
 BIEGER, ARNOLD, RATHJENS, WHITE, BOSCH, ALLEN, VOLK,
the shallow aquifer (GW_DELAY), the curve number
for all land use types (CN), the available water capac-
ity of all soils and soil layers (SOL_AWC), and the
saturated hydraulic conductivity of all soils and soil
layers (SOL_K). Model performance in simulating
streamflow at the watershed outlet was evaluated by
visual inspection of the monthly and daily hydro-
graphs and by using the Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency
(NSE) (Nash and Sutcliffe, 1970) and percent bias
(PBIAS) as model evaluation statistics. In addition,
the percentages of simulated ET and streamflow were
compared to the values estimated by Sheridan (1997).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
SWAT+ Model Performance in the LREW
SWAT+ provided reasonable estimates of the water
balance and streamflow in the LREW. The simulated
ET amounts to 66% of precipitation, similar to the
69% estimated by Sheridan (1997) based on observed
data. However, the simulated percentage of base flow
is slightly higher than the base flow ratio estimated
for the watershed based on observed data (60% vs.
54%). Figure 3 shows daily observed precipitation,
and observed and simulated hydrographs on a daily
and monthly time step for the calibration and valida-
tion periods.
Table 4 summarizes the monthly and daily NSE
and the PBIAS values for this study and several pre-
vious studies carried out in the LREW. The daily and
monthly NSE values for the calibration period indi-
cate a very good model performance, but generally
the model statistics suggest a slightly lower model
performance for this study compared to previous
studies, especially for the validation period. One of
the reasons for this could be the use of only one pre-
cipitation station instead of the large number of sta-
tions used in the other studies. Also, only very basic
calibration was conducted. Refining the calibration,
e.g., using an autocalibration tool, would most likely
result in NSE values as high as those reported for
previous SWAT applications in the LREW. The nega-
tive PBIAS for the validation period indicates an
overestimation of streamflow during the years 2003
through 2012, whereas it is underestimated during
the calibration period (1993-2002) as indicated by the
positive PBIAS. The validation period includes
several very dry years (2006-2008 and 2011-2012),
during which the model strongly overestimates
streamflow and the model performance is particularly
low, which also explains the relatively low NSE. This
problem did not occur in the context of previous
JAWRA
AND SRINIVASAN
studies, as the years after 2004 were not included in
the model runs. The discrepancy between the calibra-
tion and validation periods suggests that with the
current watershed configuration, SWAT+ is not able
to adequately represent all critical processes in the
watershed. The soils in the LREW are underlain by
the Hawthorn formation, which serves as an aqui-
clude and thus restricts deep seepage to regional
aquifers. Accordingly, lateral movement of shallow
base flow from the uplands to the floodplain is pro-
moted (Sheridan, 1997), which leads to saturation
excess conditions along the streams (Bosch et al.,
2010). Shirmohammadi et al. (1986) demonstrate that
the hydrologic behavior of the watershed is strongly
affected by the storage capability of the channel allu-
vium, which is highly dependent on antecedent mois-
ture conditions. The improved watershed
discretization and landscape routing capabilities of
SWAT+ are expected to improve the simulation of
exactly this type of landscape and stream interaction.
However, the purpose of the current SWAT+ applica-
tion was to test the basic hydrologic function of the
model. Future SWAT+ applications in the LREW will
focus on evaluating in detail the impacts of a better
spatial representation of critical watershed character-
istics and hydrological processes on streamflow.
Strengths of SWAT+ Compared to SWAT
SWAT+ addresses several key limitations of SWAT
that have been discussed in the literature over the
past years. Table 5 summarizes the most important
modifications and their advantages. According to
Arnold et al. (2010), one of the biggest problems in
the use of large-scale watershed models is “the dis-
cretization of the watershed to best represent water-
shed processes while at the same time not exceeding
the limitation of available data and computational
time requirements.” Arnold et al. (2010) compared
four landscape delineation methods, lumped, HRU,
catena, and grid, in the Brushy Creek Watershed in
Texas. For the catena method, the watershed was
divided into divide, hillslope, and valley bottom, and
flow was routed across these three LSUs. However,
each LSU contained only one HRU. This first version
of the SWAT landscape model was developed by Volk
et al. (2007). It preserves landscape position and
allows floodplain areas to be simulated as discrete
units. Arnold et al. (2010) identified the catena
approach as a good alternative for SWAT applica-
tions, but point out that HRUs should be simulated
within each LSU. Bosch et al. (2010) tested the
SWAT landscape model on a hillslope in Georgia and
concluded that the modifications will provide a more
realistic representation of landscape flow and
8 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION
 INTRODUCTION TO SWAT+, A COMPLETELY RESTRUCTURED VERSION OF THE SOIL AND WATER ASSESSMENT TOOL

FIGURE 3. Simulated and Observed Daily Precipitation (top) and Daily (middle) and Monthly (bottom) Hydrographs at the Little River
Experimental Watershed Outlet during the Calibration and Validation Periods.

transport processes. Therefore, a slightly modified
version of the LSU approach presented by Arnold
et al. (2010) and Bosch et al. (2010) was integrated in
SWAT+. The user can choose between a conventional
and a LSU setup. Two different methods are avail-
able to delineate the LSUs, a slope position method
and a variable storage method (Rathjens et al., 2016).
While the variable storage method is a floodplain
delineation method and thus defines two LSUs
(upland and floodplain), the slope position method
technically allows the user to delineate three or even
more LSUs (Rathjens et al., 2016). HRUs are defined
after the subdivision of each subbasin into LSUs and
aggregated at the LSU level. SWAT has been used in
many studies to identify CSAs within a watershed
(e.g., Tripathi et al., 2003; Gitau et al., 2004, 2006;
Srinivasan et al., 2005; White et al., 2009). While the
model’s HRU concept allows for an effective

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION 9 JAWRA

 BIEGER, ARNOLD, RATHJENS, WHITE, BOSCH, ALLEN, VOLK,
TABLE 4. Model Evaluation Statistics for the Current and Previous SWAT Studies in the Little River Experimental Watershed.
Authors SWAT Version Simulation Period
Van Liew et al. (2007) SWAT2003 Cal: 1997-2002,
Val: 1972-1996
Cho et al. (2010) SWAT2005 1996-2004
Veith et al. (2010) SWAT2005 1997-2002
Cho et al. (2012) SWAT2005 Cal: 1996-1999,
Val: 2000-2004
Current study SWAT+ Cal: 1993-2002,
Val: 2003-2012
Note: Cal, calibration; Val, validation; NSE, Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency; PBIAS, percent bias.
identification of relatively small CSAs, estimating
their contribution to the watershed’s total pollutant
load is much harder because the position of individ-
ual HRUs within the watershed and water and pollu-
tant routing across the landscape are disregarded
(White et al., 2009). Including the delineation of
LSUs as a standard option during SWAT+ model con-
struction facilitates the integration of new routing
methods for flow and pollutants, e.g., the landscape
transport capacity (LTC) approach proposed by
Bonum a et al. (2014). The capability to divide the
subbasins into LSUs thus addresses one of the key
limitations of the SWAT model pointed out by Arnold
and Fohrer (2005), Gassman et al. (2007), and Krysa-
nova and Arnold (2008), i.e., the lack of flow and pol-
lutant routing within a subbasin. However, while the
delineation of a floodplain allows for a more accurate
placement of riparian buffer zones, explicit spatial
representation of other conservation practices and of
wetlands remains problematic as the HRU approach
is still applied within the LSUs. An even more
detailed spatial representation of the watershed char-
acteristics and processes and a more accurate place-
ment of conservation practices can be accomplished
by using the grid-based setup option in SWAT+. The
method adopted in SWAT+ was developed by Rath-
jens and Oppelt (2012) and enhanced by Rathjens
et al. (2015). A first application of a grid-based ver-
sion of SWAT2012 produced promising results. How-
ever, the method needs to be tested in additional
watersheds representing a large range of scales and
environmental conditions. Also, the computational
time requirements are extremely high, so the use of a
grid-based model setup will likely be limited to rela-
tively small watersheds (Rathjens et al., 2015).
Finally, the user has to keep in mind that the spatial
and temporal resolution of input and validation data
does not necessarily meet the demands of a detailed
simulation and verification of watershed processes.
Incorporating LSUs into SWAT+ also creates the
prerequisites for improving the simulation of flood-
plain processes and stream-aquifer interactions. Kry-
sanova and Arnold (2008) point out that improved
JAWRA 10
AND SRINIVASAN
Monthly NSE Daily NSE PBIAS
Cal: 0.90, Cal: 0.71, Cal: 12.2,
Val: 0.89 Val: 0.68 Val: 19.0
0.89 NA 7.8
0.90 NA 13.9
Cal: 0.96, Cal: 0.78, Cal: 3.6,
Val: 0.87 Val: 0.72 Val: 5.1
Cal: 0.85, Cal: 0.73, Cal: 15.8,
Val: 0.62 Val: 0.47 Val: 28.0
floodplain algorithms are needed in SWAT. In many
watersheds, the interaction of a river with its flood-
plain has a significant impact on the timing of pollu-
tant loads, as sediment and nutrients can be detained
in the floodplain and partially released later. If the
floodplain is defined in SWAT+ as a separate LSU,
flooding from the stream across the floodplain can be
simulated whenever streamflow exceeds bankfull dis-
charge. Sun et al. (2016) integrated a new module in
SWAT that is able to simulate the water exchange
between the river and the aquifer in the floodplain of
the Garonne River in France. They adopted the
catena method by Arnold et al. (2010) and divided
the floodplain into three LSUs based on the area that
is flooded by floods of a 1, 5, and 10 or more year
return period. Cerucci and Conrad (2003) used SWAT
in combination with the Riparian Ecosystem Manage-
ment Model (REMM) (Lowrance et al., 2000) to iden-
tify the most cost-efficient parcels of land to form a
riparian buffer in a watershed in New York. In their
study, SWAT output for the upland areas of the
watershed was passed on to REMM, which provides
more detailed simulations of surface hydrology, ero-
sion, vertical and horizontal subsurface flows, carbon
and nutrient dynamics, and plant growth in riparian
buffers. The new hierarchical structure of objects in
SWAT+ makes it possible to implement more detailed
spatial representations of parts of the landscape like
the one proposed by Sun et al. (2016) or to use a dif-
ferent model to simulate individual processes in
specific parts of the watershed.
In SWAT+, new spatial objects can be defined for
external models, so that SWAT can easily send out-
put to and receive input from the other model. A good
example for this is MODFLOW, which is a regular
component of SWAT+. Bailey et al. (2016) developed
the SWAT-MODFLOW linkage for SWAT2012 and
tested it in the LREW and the Klamath River Basin
in Oregon and California. SWAT passes the simu-
lated amounts of percolation and pumping and the
river stage on to MODFLOW, which returns the
groundwater table height and information about the
interaction between groundwater and surface water
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION
 INTRODUCTION TO SWAT+, A COMPLETELY RESTRUCTURED VERSION OF THE SOIL AND WATER ASSESSMENT TOOL

TABLE 5. Summary of Most Important Model Modifications and Their Advantages.

SWAT SWAT+ Advantage of SWAT+

Watershed Subdivision of subbasins into
configuration HRUs
Water areas defined as HRUs
HRUs represented by their
entire area within a subbasin
during calculation of land
phase processes
Aquifers tied to HRUs
Definition of one aquifer per
HRU
Placement of reservoirs on
main channel at
subbasin outlet
No pumps, canals, and water
rights objects
No animal herd objects
Traditional HRUs only
Traditional channels only
Spatial connections All spatial connections defined
in one file (fig.fig)
Input file structure One file for each data type for
each object
Land use and One file defining schedules and
management operations for each object
Number of crops growing at the
same time limited to one
Scheduling of operations based
on dates or heat units
Constituents Limited number of constituents
that can be simulated and
routed at the same time
No simulation of salt
Output All output printed at
simulation time step
Varying layout of output files
Specification of additional print
commands in fig.fig file
Calibration Changes in parameter values
made in the original data file
Separation of water and land
areas within subbasins
Water areas defined as
ponds/reservoirs
Definition of LSUs to
aggregate HRUs
HRUs represented by a
contiguous field with
user-defined dimensions,
actual HRU area used
as expansion factor
Aquifers independent
from HRUs
Placement of reservoirs
anywhere in the watershed
Pumps, canals, and water
rights defined as spatial
objects
Animal herds defined as spatial
object
Choice between HRU, HRU-lte,
and export coefficient
Choice between channel,
channel-lte, and delivery ratio
One connect file per spatial
object to define outflow
hydrographs, fractions, and
receiving objects
One file for each data type with
one line for each object
Separate files for schedules and
operations
Unlimited number of crops
growing at the same time
Scheduling of operations based
on dates, heat units, or
decision tables
Definition of suites of
constituents that will be
simulated for each object
Simulation of salt as a
constituent
User-defined time step for
printing output for each object
Standardized layout of output
files
Specification of additional print
commands in separate file
Changes in parameter values
listed in separate calibration
file that overrides original
values
More realistic simulation of
water areas
Improved simulation of landscape
position, overland routing, and
floodplain processes
Calculation of land phase processes
independent of HRU area
Any number of aquifers can be
defined
Facilitation of SWAT-MODFLOW
linkage
More realistic representation of
reservoir position and interactions
with the landscape
Improved consideration of
anthropogenic water use and
management, especially irrigation
Simulation of animal herds moving
around in the watershed
Different levels of complexity for
simulating land phase and channel
routing processes
More flexibility in defining spatial
interactions of objects within the
watershed
Easier to set up grid-based models
Reduced number of input files
Decrease in run time
Data files can be maintained as
databases
Management schedules and
operations can be maintained as
databases
Simulation of plant communities and
competition
More flexibility in defining variables
affecting the timing of management
operations
More comprehensive simulation of
constituents
Routing of more than one pesticide at
the same time
Printing of output according to needs
of user
Easier printing of user-defined
output files
Rapid model calibration
Better tracking of modified
parameters

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION 11 JAWRA

 BIEGER, ARNOLD, RATHJENS, WHITE, BOSCH, ALLEN, VOLK,
to SWAT (Bailey et al., 2016). In SWAT+, MOD-
FLOW grid cells are defined as separate spatial
objects. This makes simulating the interaction
between the two models considerably easier. During
model construction, the user can choose whether to
use SWAT aquifers or MODFLOW to simulate
groundwater processes. When using MODFLOW, the
model RT3D (Reactive Transport in 3 Dimensions;
Clement, 1997) can be used for simulating nitrogen
(N) and phosphorus (P) concentrations in the vadose
and saturated zones and the mass exchange of N and
P between groundwater and surface water. MOD-
FLOW and RT3D provide more accurate simulations
of groundwater processes than the SWAT groundwa-
ter module. Accordingly, using these models may be a
good alternative for groundwater-dominated water-
sheds and for studies that rely on a more detailed
simulation of groundwater processes.
Vaghefi et al. (2015) linked SWAT with the deci-
sion support system MODSIM, which can be used for
optimizing water allocation among different users.
After converting SWAT output into MODSIM input
formats, MODSIM determines the amount of water
allocated to each previously defined demand node (in
this case: HRU) using a priority-based scheme. This
approach was adopted for the water rights objects in
SWAT+, so that water can be allocated among differ-
ent users directly in the hydrological model. One of
the main advantages of the water rights objects in
SWAT+ is that they simulate not only the allocation
of available water to different recipients based on
their water rights but also the effects of the redistri-
bution of water within the watershed on the overall
water balance and the water availability at down-
stream locations.
SWAT+ also addresses some of the limitations of
SWAT in terms of the simulation of instream pro-
cesses. Allen et al. (2008) modified SWAT to simulate
down-cutting and widening in small alluvial streams,
resulting in a standalone tool called SWAT-DEG. The
variables for SWAT-DEG were kept to a minimum
and modeled results indicate channel adjustment over
time (Allen et al., 2010). The channel-lte option in
SWAT+ uses the SWAT-DEG algorithms to simulate
instream processes. It can be used instead of the regu-
lar channel option to simulate all or selected streams
in a watershed. Another option is to use channel-lte
objects to represent erosion gullies and route surface
runoff generated in the HRUs through those gullies
before summing up the HRU output at the LSU level
or passing it on directly to another spatial object. The
integration of SWAT-DEG in SWAT+ is a first step in
addressing the need for improved channel degrada-
tion and sediment routing and deposition routines
pointed out by Krysanova and Arnold (2008). Another
improvement of SWAT+ compared to SWAT is the
JAWRA
AND SRINIVASAN
capability to route as many pesticides, pathogens, and
metals through the stream network at the same time
as desired. This is an important prerequisite for refin-
ing the pathogen and metal routines and for develop-
ing algorithms for simulating the fate and transport
of common and persistent pharmaceuticals, which
was another model development need identified by
Krysanova and Arnold (2008).
The new conceptual configuration of HRUs in
SWAT+ mostly affects the calculation of sediment
yields. In the MUSLE (Modified Universal Soil Loss
Equation) (Williams, 1975), there is a nonlinear rela-
tionship between sediment yield and HRU area,
which causes the calculated sediment yields to be
highly dependent on the HRU area (FitzHugh and
Mackay, 2000). By using a representative area, the
impact of the actual HRU area is eliminated and
therefore new conceptual configuration of HRUs will
generate more accurate predictions of sediment
yields.
Krysanova and Arnold (2008) also emphasized the
need for SWAT to simulate multiculture plant com-
munities, which is now possible in SWAT+ using the
plant community file. Another aspect related to land
use is the timing of management operations. The
heat unit scheduling in SWAT allowed for scheduling
management operations as a function of temperature
variability and the crops grown (Baffaut et al., 2015),
but there may be additional variables that affect the
exact timing of management operations, e.g., soil
moisture or precipitation. Fohrer et al. (2014) found
that the simulated transport of pesticides in a water-
shed in Northern Germany was highly sensitive to
the pesticide application rate and timing. Therefore,
they recommend varying the application of pesticides
temporally and spatially rather than specifying a sin-
gle application date for a crop across the entire
watershed. In SWAT+, management operations can
be scheduled based on user-defined criteria specified
in decision tables, which makes it possible to consider
several variables influencing the timing of manage-
ment operations and to achieve a more variable and
more realistic distribution of management schedules
across a watershed.
Future Research and Development Needs
SWAT+ addresses various limitations of SWAT
that have been identified in the context of numerous
applications of the model over the past two decades.
However, the model will continue to evolve in
response to advancements in scientific knowledge and
the needs of the worldwide user community.
In terms of watershed discretization, an option to
define fields or groups of adjacent fields as HRUs and
12 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION
 INTRODUCTION TO SWAT+, A COMPLETELY RESTRUCTURED VERSION
to route water and pollutants between those HRUs
would further improve the explicit spatial representa-
tion of management and conservation practices and
the simulation of transport processes across the land-
scape. Eventually, a combination of different dis-
cretization schemes will be possible in SWAT+ to
simulate all processes at the most appropriate scale.
However, adequate algorithms partitioning surface
runoff into sheet flow and channelized flow have to
be identified or developed for routing flow and pollu-
tants from one LSU or HRU to another.
Individual algorithms in SWAT+ need to be
revised or replaced by other, more adequate algo-
rithms. For example, Garen and Moore (2005)
encourage hydrologic modelers to take advantage of
the spatial information and computing ability avail-
able today to develop new algorithms that represent
all runoff-generating processes. By allowing the
floodplain soils to become saturated, which results in
a much higher curve number, the integration of
LSUs in SWAT+ is an important step toward
accounting not only for infiltration excess but also
for saturation excess overland flow. However, the
model is still not flexible enough to represent the
temporal variability in location and size of runoff-
generating areas within a watershed. The option to
estimate surface runoff using the Green and Ampt
(1911) method was retained in SWAT+, but its data
requirements limit its use to very well-gauged
watersheds. An alternative approach to developing
new algorithms for SWAT+ is to link it to other
models that provide more detailed simulations of
individual processes, e.g., Water Erosion Prediction
Project (WEPP) (Flanagan et al., 2012) or different
instream, wetland, or lake models, or incorporating
their algorithms into SWAT+. The linkage of SWAT
and MODFLOW (Bailey et al., 2016) demonstrates
the ease of integrating other models in SWAT+.
Gassman et al. (2007) mentioned that there often
is a lack of data needed to characterize input parame-
ters and of sufficient monitoring data to validate a
SWAT model. Long-term time series of all major
hydrologic processes are rarely available. However,
general information on individual processes may be
obtained from the literature or even by visual inspec-
tion of the study site (Arnold et al., 2015). Seibert
and McDonnell (2002) suggested the use of so-called
hard (measured time series, typically measured at a
point) and soft (information on individual processes
that may not be directly measured in the study area,
e.g., regional estimates of base flow and ET, runoff
coefficients, export coefficients, or average leaf area
index (LAI) values) data for multicriteria model cali-
bration and argue that soft data represent a new
dimension to the model calibration process. Soft data
can be used to perform a formal check on the
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION
OF THE SOIL AND WATER ASSESSMENT TOOL
reasonableness and consistency of internal model
structures and processes (Arnold et al., 2015), not
only complementary to but also in the absence of
hard data for model calibration. Yen et al. (2014)
demonstrate the importance of using soft data during
model calibration to avoid inaccurate simulations of
processes within the watershed. Among many others,
Arnold et al. (2015) emphasize the importance of real-
istically simulating all critical watershed processes,
so incorporating more soft data will be a major focus
of future SWAT+ development.
To improve the availability of data for model param-
eterization, many SWAT+ files may eventually morph
into databases, e.g., management schedules and til-
lage, fertilizer application, and harvest operations.
Comprehensive databases of management schedules
and operations can be used in as many SWAT setups
as desired and easily be shared with the SWAT com-
munity. Similarly, databases can be developed for
aquifers and reservoirs. If all SWAT+ users contribute
to expanding the databases with data for different
parts of the world, the model setup and parameteriza-
tion effort can be reduced considerably.
Finally, SWAT+ output analysis and visualization
will be improved in the future. Although the output
directly generated by the model may be useful to
researchers, it needs to be translated to information
that is meaningful to stakeholders, watershed man-
agers, conservationists, and politicians. Postprocess-
ing of data needs to focus on providing decision
makers with information about the implications of
certain measures or neglect of implementing those on
variables, species, or processes relevant to them.
CONCLUSIONS
Pressure has increased on environmental scientists
and modelers to undertake good science in an effi-
cient way while also ensuring that the research is rel-
evant to management. In response to this pressure,
SWAT+ was developed, a completely revised version
of SWAT that addresses many of the model’s previous
limitations. SWAT+ offers more flexibility than SWAT
with regard to the delineation and interaction of spa-
tial objects in a watershed. While this gives the users
the opportunity to achieve a more realistic spatial
representation of their study watersheds, it also
entails considerably more responsibility on the part
of users to configure their watershed appropriately. A
sound understanding of the watershed characteristics
and processes that are important in the watershed is
critical to properly represent the watershed in
SWAT+.
13 JAWRA
 BIEGER, ARNOLD, RATHJENS, WHITE, BOSCH, ALLEN, VOLK,
The development of SWAT+ is still underway; how-
ever, testing of the new model has already begun.
The first application of SWAT+ to the LREW in Geor-
gia demonstrates that the new code provides reason-
able to good predictions of streamflow and water
balance. According to model evaluation criteria,
SWAT+ model performance is comparable to the per-
formance of SWAT in previous studies in the same
watershed. However, inaccuracies in simulating the
hydrograph at the LREW watershed outlet that are
related to the strong impact of storage in the alluvial
aquifer on streamflow in the LREW persist, so future
studies will focus on taking better advantage of the
strengths of SWAT+ in terms of watershed discretiza-
tion to improve the spatial representation of pro-
cesses within the watershed. Future testing will also
encompass the simulation of sediment and nutrients,
and additional watersheds, with varied climatic, topo-
graphic, and geographic settings. The development
and testing of SWAT+ will be continued in accordance
with advancements in scientific knowledge and the
needs of the worldwide user community.
LITERATURE CITED
Abbaspour, K.C., 2013. User Manual for SWAT-CUP, SWAT Cali-
bration and Uncertainty Analysis Programs. Swiss Federal
Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology, Eawag, Dueben-
dorf, Switzerland, 103 pp.
Allen, P.M., J.G. Arnold, S. Capello, and D. Coffman, 2010. Chan-
nel Erosion Estimate for Urbanizing Watersheds: Submerged
Jet Testing and SWAT DEG. In: 21st Century Watershed Tech-
nology: Improving Water Quality and Environment Conference
Proceedings, February 21-24, 2010, Universidad EARTH, Costa
Rica. ASABE Publication Number 701P0210cd. ASABE, St.
Joseph, Michigan, 10 pp.
Allen, P.M., J.G. Arnold, and W. Skipwith, 2008. Prediction of
Channel Degradation Rates in Urbanizing Watersheds. Hydro-
logical Sciences Journal 53(5):1013-1029, DOI: 10.1623/
hysj.53.5.1013.
Arabi, M., J.R. Frankenberger, B.A. Engel, and J.G. Arnold, 2008.
Representation of Agricultural Conservation Practices with
SWAT. Hydrological Processes 22:3042-3055, DOI: 10.1002/
hyp.6890.
Arnold, J.G., P.M. Allen, M. Volk, J.R. Williams, and D.D. Bosch,
2010. Assessment of Different Representations of Spatial Vari-
ability on SWAT Model Performance. Transactions of the
ASABE 53(5):1433-1443, DOI: 10.13031/2013.34913.
Arnold, J.G. and N. Fohrer, 2005. SWAT2000: Current Capabilities
and Research Opportunities in Applied Watershed Modelling.
Hydrological Processes 19:563-572, DOI: 10.1002/hyp.5611.
Arnold, J.G., R. Srinivasan, R.S. Muttiah, and J.R. Williams, 1998.
Large Area Hydrologic Modeling and Assessment Part I: Model
Development. Journal of the American Water Resources Associ-
ation 34(1):73-89, DOI: 10.1111/j.1752-1688.1998.tb05961.x.
Arnold, J.G. and J.R. Williams, 1987. Validation of SWRRB: Simu-
lator for Water Resources in Rural Basins. Journal of Water
Resources Planning and Management (ASCE) 113(2):243-256,
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9496(1987) 113:2(243).
JAWRA
AND SRINIVASAN
Arnold, J.G., J.R. Williams, and D.R. Maidment, 1995. Continuous-
Time Water and Sediment Routing Model for Large Basins.
Journal of Hydrologic Engineering (ASCE) 121(2):171-183, DOI:
10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(1995) 121:2(171).
Arnold, J.G., M.A. Youssef, H. Yen, M.J. White, A.Y. Sheshukov,
A.M. Sadeghi, D.N. Moriasi, J.L. Steiner, D.M. Amatya, R.W.
Skaggs, E.B. Haney, J. Jeong, M. Arabi, and P.H. Gowda, 2015.
Hydrological Processes and Model Representation: Impact of
Soft Data on Calibration. Transactions of the ASABE 58
(6):1637-1660, DOI: 13031/trans.58.10726.
Baffaut, C., S.M. Dabney, M.D. Smolen, M.A. Youssef, J.V. Bonta,
M.L. Chu, J.A. Guzman, V.S. Shedekar, M.K. Jha, and J.G.
Arnold, 2015. Hydrologic and Water Quality Modeling: Spatial
and Temporal Considerations. Transactions of the ASABE 58
(6):1661-1680, DOI: 10.13031/trans.58.10714.
Bailey, R., T.C. Wible, M. Arabi, R.M. Records, and J. Ditty, 2016.
Assessing Regional-Scale Spatio-Temporal Patterns of Ground-
water-Surface Water Interactions Using a Coupled SWAT-
MODFLOW Model. Hydrological Processes, DOI: 10.1002/
hyp.10933.
Bonum a, N.B., C.G. Rossi, J.G. Arnold, J.M. Reichert, J.P. Minella,
P.M. Allen, and M. Volk, 2014. Simulating Landscape Sediment
Transport Capacity by Using a Modified SWAT Model. Journal
of Environmental Quality 43:55-66, DOI: 10.2134/jeq2012.0217.
Bosch, D.D., J.G. Arnold, M. Volk, and P.M. Allen, 2010. Simula-
tion of a Low-Gradient Coastal Plain Watershed Using the
SWAT Landscape Model. Transactions of the ASABE 53
(5):1445-1456, DOI: 10.13031/2013.34899.
Bosch, D.D. and J.M. Sheridan, 2007. Stream Discharge Database,
Little River Experimental Watershed, Georgia, United States.
Water Resources Research 43:W09473, DOI: 10.1029/
2006WR005833.
Bosch, D.D., J.M. Sheridan, and F.M. Davis, 1999. Rainfall Charac-
teristics and Spatial Correlation for the Georgia Coastal Plain.
Transactions of the ASAE 42(6):1637-1644, DOI: 10.13031/
2013.13330.
Bosch, D.D., J.M. Sheridan, R.R. Lowrance, R.K. Hubbard, T.C.
Strickland, G.W. Feyereisen, and D.G. Sullivan, 2007. Little
River Experimental Watershed Database. Water Resources
Research 43:W09470, DOI: 10.1029/2006WR005844.
Bosch, D.D., J.M. Sheridan, and D.G. Sullivan, 2006. Hydrologic
Impact of Land-Use Changes in Coastal Plain Watersheds.
Transactions of the ASABE 49(2):423-432, DOI: 10.13031/
2013.20416.
Brown, L.C. and T.O. Barnwell, 1987. The Enhanced Water Qual-
ity Models QUAL2E and QUAL2E-UNCAS: Documentation and
User Manual. EPA/600/3-87/007. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Athens, Georgia.
Cerucci, M. and J.M. Conrad, 2003. The Use of Binary Optimiza-
tion and Hydrologic Models to Form Riparian Buffers. Journal
of the American Water Resources Association 39(5):1167-1180,
DOI: 10.1111/j.1752-1688.2003.tb03700.x.
Cho, J., D.D. Bosch, G. Vellidis, R. Lowrance, and T. Strickland,
2012. Multi-Site Evaluation of Hydrology Component of SWAT
in the Coastal Plain of Southwest Georgia. Hydrological Pro-
cesses 27(12):1691-1700, DOI: 10.1002/hyp.9341.
Cho, J., G. Vellidis, D.D. Bosch, R. Lowrance, and T. Strickland,
2010. Water Quality Effects of Simulated Conservation Practice
Scenarios in the Little River Experimental Watershed. Journal
of Soil and Water Conservation 65(6):463-473, DOI: 10.2489/
jswc.65.6.463.
Clement, T.P., 1997. RT3D—A Modular Computer Code for Simu-
lating Reactive Multi-Species Transport in 3-Dimensional
Groundwater Systems. Report PNNL-11720, Pacific Northwest
National Laboratory, Richland, Washington.
Douglas-Mankin, K.R., R. Srinivasan, and J.G. Arnold, 2010. Soil
and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) Model: Current
14 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION
 INTRODUCTION TO SWAT+, A COMPLETELY RESTRUCTURED VERSION
Developments and Applications. Transactions of the ASABE 53
(5):1423-1431, DOI: 10.13031/2013.34915.
Feyereisen, G.W., R. Lowrance, T.C. Strickland, J.M. Sheridan,
R.K. Hubbard, and D.D. Bosch, 2007. Long-Term Water Chem-
istry Database, Little River Experimental Watershed, Southeast
Coastal Plain, United States. Water Resources Research 43:
W09474, DOI: 10.1029/2006WR005835.
FitzHugh, T.W. and D.S. Mackay, 2000. Impacts of Input Parame-
ter Spatial Aggregation on an Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pol-
lution Model. Journal of Hydrology 236:35-53, DOI: 10.1016/
S0022-1694(00)00276-6.
Flanagan, D.C., J.E. Gilley, and T.G. Franti, 2012. Water Erosion
Prediction Project (WEPP): Development History, Model Capa-
bilities, and Future Enhancements. Transactions of the ASABE
50(5):1603-1612, DOI: 10.13031/2013.23968.
Fohrer, N., A. Dietrich, O. Kolychalow, and U. Ulrich, 2014.
Assessment of the Environmental Fate of the Herbicides Flufe-
nacet and Metazachlor with the SWAT Model. Journal of Envi-
ronmental Quality 43:75-85, DOI: 10.2134/jeq2011.0382.
Garen, D.C. and D.S. Moore, 2005. Curve Number Hydrology in
Water Quality Modeling: Uses, Abuses, and Future Directions.
Journal of the American Water Resources Association 41(2):377-
388, DOI: 10.1111/j.1752-1688.2005.tb03742.x.
Gassman, P.W., J.G. Arnold, R. Srinivasan, and M. Reyes, 2010.
The Worldwide Use of the SWAT Model: Technological Drivers,
Networking Impacts, and Simulation Trends. In: 21st Century
Watershed Technology: Improving Water Quality and Environ-
ment Conference Proceedings, February 21-24, 2010, Universi-
dad EARTH, Costa Rica. ASABE Publication Number
701P0210cd. ASABE, St. Joseph, Michigan, 8pp.
Gassman, P.W., M.R. Reyes, C.H. Green, and J.G. Arnold, 2007.
The Soil and Water Assessment Tool: Historical Development,
Applications, and Future Research Directions. Transactions of
the ASABE 50(4):1211-1250, DOI: 10.13031/2013.23637.
Gassman, P.W., A.M. Sadeghi, and R. Srinivasan, 2014. Applica-
tions of the SWAT Model Special Section: Overview and
Insights. Journal of Environmental Quality 43:1-8, DOI:
10.2134/jeq2013.11.0466.
Gitau, M.W., T.L. Veith, and W.J. Gburek, 2004. Farm-Level Opti-
mization of BMP Placement for Cost-Effective Pollution Reduc-
tion. Transactions of the ASABE 47(6):1923-193, DOI: 10.13031/
2013.17805.
Gitau, M.W., T.L. Veith, W.J. Gburek, and A.R. Jarrett, 2006.
Watershed Level Best Management Practice Selection and
Placement in the Town Brook Watershed, New York. Journal of
the American Water Resources Association 42(6):1565-1581,
DOI: 10.1111/j.1752-1688.2006.tb06021.x.
Green, W.H. and G.A. Ampt, 1911. Studies on Soil Physics. The
Journal of Agricultural Science 4:1-24, DOI: 10.1017/
S0021859600001441.
Krysanova, V. and J.G. Arnold, 2008. Advances in Ecohydrological
Modelling With SWAT—A Review. Hydrological Sciences Jour-
nal 53(5):939-947, DOI: 10.1623/hysj.53.5.939.
Lowrance, R., L.S. Altier, R.G. Williams, S.P. Inamdar, J.M. Sheri-
dan, D.D. Bosch, R.K. Hubbard, and D.L. Thomas, 2000.
REMM: The Riparian Ecosystem Management Model. Journal
of Soil and Water Conservation 55(1):27-34.
Nash, J.E. and J.V. Sutcliffe, 1970. River Flow Forecasting through
Conceptual Models: Part 1. A Discussion of Principles. Journal
of Hydrology 10(3):282-290, DOI: 10.1016/0022-1694(70)90255-6.
Rathjens, H., K. Bieger, I. Chaubey, J.G. Arnold, P.M. Allen, R.
Srinivasan, D.D. Bosch, and M. Volk, 2016. Delineating Flood-
plain and Upland Areas for Hydrologic Models—A Comparison
of Methods. Hydrological Processes, DOI: 10.1002/hyp.10918.
Rathjens, H. and N. Oppelt, 2012. SWATgrid: An Interface for Set-
ting up SWAT in a Grid-Based Discretization Scheme. Comput-
ers & Geosciences 45:161-167, DOI: 10.1016/j.cageo.2011.11.004.
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION
OF THE SOIL AND WATER ASSESSMENT TOOL
Rathjens, H., N. Oppelt, D.D. Bosch, J.G. Arnold, and M. Volk,
2015. Development of a Grid-Based Version of the SWAT Land-
scape Model. Hydrological Processes 29:900-914, DOI: 10.1002/
hyp.10197.
Seibert, J. and J.J. McDonnell, 2002. On the Dialog between
Experimentalist and Modeler in Catchment Hydrology: Use of
Soft Data for Multicriteria Model Calibration. Water Resources
Research 38(11):1241, DOI: 10.1029/2001WR000978.
Sheridan, J.M., 1997. Rainfall-Streamflow Relations for Coastal
Plain Watersheds. Applied Engineering in Agriculture 13
(3):333-344.
Shirmohammadi, A., J.M. Sheridan, and L.E. Asmussen, 1986.
Hydrology of Alluvial Stream Channels in Southern Coastal
Plain Watersheds. Transactions of the ASAE 29(1):135-142,
DOI: 10.13031/2013.30116.
Srinivasan, M.S., P. Gerard-Marchant, T.L. Veith, W.J. Gburek,
and T.S. Steenhuis, 2005. Watershed Scale Modeling of Critical
Source Areas of Runoff Generation and Phosphorus Transport.
Journal of the American Water Resources Association 41:361-
377, DOI: 10.1111/j.1752-1688.2005.tb03741.x.
Sullivan, D.G., H.L. Batten, D. Bosch, J. Sheridan, and T. Strick-
land, 2007. Little River Experimental Watershed, Tifton, Geor-
gia, United States: A Geographic Database. Water Resources
Research 43:W09471, DOI: 10.1029/2006WR005836.
Sun, X., L. Bernard-Jannin, C. Garneau, M. Volk, J.G. Arnold, R.
Srinivasan, S. Sauvage, and J.M. S anchez-Perez, 2016.
Improved Simulation of River Water and Groundwater
Exchange in an Alluvial Plain Using the SWAT Model. Hydro-
logical Processes 30:187-202, DOI: 10.1002/hyp.10575.
Tripathi, M.P., R.K. Panda, and N.S. Raghuwanshi, 2003. Identi-
fication and Prioritization of Critical Sub-Watersheds for Soil
Conservation Management Using the SWAT Model. Biosys-
tems Engineering 85:365-379, DOI: 10.1016/S1537-5110(03)
00066-7.
Tuppad, P., K.R. Douglas-Mankin, T. Lee, R. Srinivasan, and J.G.
Arnold, 2011. Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) Hydro-
logic/Water Quality Model: Extended Capability and Wider
Adoption. Transactions of the ASABE 54(5):1677-1684, DOI:
10.13031/2013.39856.
Vaghefi, S.A., S.J. Mousavi, K.C. Abbaspour, R. Srinivasan, and
J.G. Arnold, 2015. Integration of Hydrologic and Water Alloca-
tion Models in Basin-Scale Water Resources Management Con-
sidering Crop Pattern and Climate Change: Karkheh River
Basin in Iran. Regional Environmental Change 15:475-484,
DOI: 10.1007/s10113-013-0573-9.
Van Liew, M.W., T.L. Veith, D.D. Bosch, and J.G. Arnold, 2007.
Suitability of SWAT for the Conservation Effects Assessment
Project: Comparison on USDA Agricultural Research Service
Watersheds. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering 12(2):173-189,
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0699(2007) 12:2(173).
Veith, T.L., M.W. Van Liew, D.D. Bosch, and J.G. Arnold, 2010.
Parameter Sensitivity and Uncertainty in SWAT: A Comparison
Across Five USDA-ARS Watersheds. Transactions of the
ASABE 53(5):1477-1486, DOI: 10.13031/2013.34906.
Volk, M., J. Arnold, D. Bosch, P. Allen, and C. Green, 2007. Water-
shed Configuration and Simulation of Landscape Processes with
the SWAT Model. In: MODSIM 2007 International Congress on
Modelling and Simulation, L. Oxley, and D. Kulasiri (Editors).
Modeling and Simulation Society of Australia and New Zealand,
December 2007, pp. 2383-2389.
White, M.J., D.E. Storm, P.R. Busteed, S.H. Stoodley, and S.J.
Phillips, 2009. Evaluating Nonpoint Source Critical Source Area
Contributions at the Watershed Scale. Journal of Environmen-
tal Quality 38:1654-1663, DOI: 10.2134/jeq2008.0375.
Williams, J.R., 1975. Sediment Routing for Agricultural Water-
sheds. Journal of the American Water Resources Association
11:965-974, DOI: 10.1111/j.1752-1688.1975.tb01817.x.
15 JAWRA
 BIEGER, ARNOLD, RATHJENS, WHITE, BOSCH, ALLEN, VOLK, AND SRINIVASAN

Williams, J.R., J.G. Arnold, J.R. Kiniry, P.W. Gassman, and C.H.
Green, 2008. History of Model Development at Temple, Texas.
Hydrological Sciences Journal 53(5):948-960, DOI: 10.1623/
hysj.53.5.948.
Williams, J.R., A.D. Nicks, and J.G. Arnold, 1985. Simulator for
Water Resources in Rural Basins. Journal of Hydraulic Engi-
neering (ASCE) 111(6):970-986, DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429
(1985) 111:6(970).
Yen, H., R.T. Bailey, M. Arabi, M. Ahmadi, M.J. White, and J.G.
Arnold, 2014. The Role of Interior Watershed Processes in
Improving Parameter Estimation and Performance of Water-
shed Models. Journal of Environmental Quality 43:1601-1613,
DOI: 10.2134/jeq2013.03.0110.

JAWRA 16 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION