English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The results of hydrological modelling depend on the quality and spatial resolution of the input data. This paper evaluates how the use of different estimations of climatic variables input layers (precipitation and ETP) and different basin discretization schemes influence affect the results of a contrasted hydrological model (SWAT). Specifically, 4 sets of input and discretization variables are tested. The statistics used to evaluate the accuracy obtained with these sets are RMSE, PBIAS, NSE and r. The results show that the use of better models to obtain ETP series (Penman Monteith FAO or calibrated Hargreaves) considerably improves the accuracy of the model compared to the series obtained with the uncalibrated Hargreaves model (default option in SWAT). However, there is no difference between the results obtained with Penman Monteith FAO and calibrated Hargreaves. On the other hand, the use of distributed climate information significantly improves the results obtained with aggregated information. There is also a need to calibrate SWAT parameters as the default values are optimized for temperate environments in the USA.

Effect of watershed subdivision and estimation of climatic variables on hydrological simulation with the swat model in semi-arid mediterranean basins