References
- Abbaspour, K.C., 2013. Swat-cup 2012. In: SWAT calibration and uncertainty program—a user manual.
- Abbaspour, K.C., 2015. SWAT-Calibration and Uncertainty Programs (CUP)—a user manual. Eawag, Duebendorf: Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology, 1–100.
- Abbaspour, K.C., et al., 2007. Modelling hydrology and water quality in the pre-alpine/alpine Thur watershed using SWAT. Journal of Hydrology, 333 (2–4), 413–430. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2006.09.014.
- Abbaspour, K.C., Johnson, C.A., and Van Genuchten, M.T., 2004. Estimating uncertain flow and transport parameters using a sequential uncertainty fitting procedure. Vadose Zone Journal, 3 (4), 1340–1352. [CrossRef]. https://doi.org/10.2136/vzj2004.1340.
- Abbaspour, K.C., Vaghefi, S.A., and Srinivasan, R., 2017. A guideline for successful calibration and uncertainty analysis for soil and water assessment: a review of papers from the 2016 international SWAT conference. Water (Switzerland), 10 (1), 6.
- Adla, S., Tripathi, S., and Disse, M., 2019. Can We Calibrate a Daily Time-Step Hydrological Model Using Monthly Time-Step Discharge Data? Water, 11 (9), 1750. doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/w11091750
- Arnold, J.G., et al., 1998. Large area hydrologic modeling and assessment part I: model development. JAWRA, 34 (1), 73–89.
- Arnold, J.G., et al., 2012. SWAT: model use, calibration, and validation. Transactions of the ASABE, 55 (4), 1491–1508.
- Arnold, J.G., Allen, P.M., and Bernhardt, G., 1993. A comprehensive surface-groundwater flow model. Journal of Hydrology, 142 (1–4), 47–69.
- Atkinson, S.E., Woods, R.A., and Sivapalan, M., 2002. Climate and landscape controls on water balance model complexity over changing timescales. Water Resources Research, 38 (12), 50–51. doi:https://doi.org/10.1029/2002WR001487
- Beven, K. and Freer, J., 2001. A dynamic topmodel. Hydrological Processes, 15 (10), 1993–2011.
- Cho, J., et al., 2009. Sensitivity to grid and time resolution of hydrology components of Dansat. Transactions of the ASABE, 52 (4), 1121–1128. doi:https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.27789
- Da Silva, V.P.R., et al., 2017. Simulation of streamflow and hydrological response to land-cover changes in a tropical river basin. Catena, 162 (December), 166–176. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2017.11.024
- Daggupati, P., et al., 2015. Impact of model development, calibration and validation decisions on hydrological simulations in West Lake Erie Basin. Hydrological Processes, 29 (26), 5307–5320.
- Finnerty, B., et al., 1997. Space-time scale sensitivity of the Sacramento model to radar-gage precipitation inputs. Journal of Hydrology, 203 (1–4), 21–38. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(97)00083-8
- Gassman, P.W., et al., 2012. Worldwide use of SWAT: 2012 update. In: Proceedings of the 2012 international SWAT conference, July. New Delhi, India: India Habitat Centre, 18–20.
- Getirana, A.C.V., 2010. Integrating spatial altimetry data into the automatic calibration of hydrological models. Journal of Hydrology, 387 (3–4), 244–255. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2010.04.013
- Gupta, H.V. and Sorooshian, S., 1998. Toward improved calibration of hydrologic models: multiple and noncommensurable measures of information. Water Resources Research, 34 (4), 751–763. doi:https://doi.org/10.1029/97WR03495
- Hargreaves, G.H. and Samani, Z.A., 1985. Reference crop evapotranspiration from temperature. Applied Engineering in Agriculture, 1 (2), 96–99.
- Herman, J.D., Reed, P.M., and Wagener, T., 2013. Time-varying sensitivity analysis clarifies the effects of watershed model formulation on model behavior. Water Resources Research, 49 (3), 1400–1414. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/wrcr.20124
- Kavetski, D., Fenicia, F., and Clark, M.P., 2011. Impact of temporal data resolution on parameter inference and model identification in conceptual hydrological modeling: insights from an experimental catchment. Water Resources Research, 47 (5), 1–25. doi:https://doi.org/10.1029/2010WR009525
- Knisel, W.G. CREAMS: a field scale model for Chemicals, Runoff, and Erosion from Agricultural Management Systems. In Conservation Research Report No. 26; US Dept. of Agriculture, Science and Education Administration: Washington, DC, USA, 1980.
- Kumarasamy, K. and Belmont, P., 2018. Calibration parameter selection and watershed hydrology model evaluation in time and frequency domains. Water, 10 (6), 710.
- Lerat, J., et al., 2020. A robust approach for calibrating a daily rainfall-runoff model to monthly streamflow data. Journal of Hydrology, 591, 125–129.
- Littlewood, I.G. and Croke, B.F.W., 2008. Data time-step dependency of conceptual rainfall–streamflow model parameters: an empirical study with implications for regionalisationregionalization. Hydrological Sciences Journal, 53 (4), 685–695. doi:https://doi.org/10.1623/hysj.53.4.685
- Lotz, T., Opp, C., and He, X., 2018. Factors of runoff generation in the Dongting Lake basin based on a SWAT model and implications of recent land cover change. Quaternary International, 475, 54–62. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2017.03.057
- Madsen, H., 2000. Automatic calibration of a conceptual rainfall–runoff model using multiple objectives. Journal of Hydrology, 235 (3–4), 276–288. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(00)00279-1
- Maheswaran, R. and Khosa, R., 2012. Wavelet–Volterra coupled model for monthly stream flow forecasting. Journal of Hydrology, 450, 320–335.
- Merz, R., Parajka, J., and Blöschl, G., 2009. Scale effects in conceptual hydrological modeling. Water Resources Research, 45 (9), W09405. doi:https://doi.org/10.1029/2009WR007872
- Monteith, J.L., 1965. Evaporation and environment. In: Symposia of the society for experimental biology. Vol. 19. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (CUP), 205–234.
- Murty, P.S., Pandey, A., and Suryavanshi, S., 2014. Application of semi-distributed hydrological model for basin level water balance of the Ken basin of Central India. Hydrological Processes, 28 (13), 4119–4129. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.9950
- Narsimlu, B., et al., 2015. SWAT model calibration and uncertainty analysis for streamflow prediction in the Kunwari River Basin, India, using sequential uncertainty fitting. Environmental Processes, 2 (1), 79–95. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s40710-015-0064-8
- Nash, J.E. and Sutcliffe, J.V., 1970. River flow forecasting through conceptual models part I — a discussion of principles. Journal of Hydrology, 10 (3), 282–290. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1694(70)90255-6
- Neitsch, S.L., et al., 2002. Soil and water assessment tool (SWAT): theoretical documentation, version 2000. College Station, TX: Texas Water Resources. TWRI Report TR-191.
- Novotny, E.V. and Stefan, H.G., 2007. Stream flow in Minnesota: indicator of climate change. Journal of Hydrology, 334 (3–4), 319–333. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2006.10.011
- Poncelet, C., et al., 2017. Process-based interpretation of conceptual hydrological model performance using a multinational catchment set. Water Resources Research, 53 (8), 7247–7268. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/2016WR019991
- Priestley, C.H.B. and Taylor, R.J., 1972. On the assessment of surface heat flux and evaporation using large-scale parameters. Monthly Weather Review, 100 (2), 81–92.
- Rathinasamy, M., et al., 2014. Wavelet‐based multiscale performance analysis: An approach to assess and improve hydrological models. Water Resources Research, 50 (12), 9721–9737.
- Remesan, R., et al., 2010. Effect of data time interval on real-time flood forecasting. Journal of Hydroinformatics, 12 (4), 396–407. doi:https://doi.org/10.2166/hydro.2010.063
- Reusser, D.E., Buytaert, W., and Zehe, E., 2011. Temporal dynamics of model parameter sensitivity for computationally expensive models with the Fourier amplitude sensitivity test. Water Resources Research, 47 (7). doi:https://doi.org/10.1029/2010WR009947
- Reynolds, J.E., et al., 2018. Definitions of climatological and discharge days: do they matter in hydrological modelling? Hydrological Sciences Journal, 63 (5), 836–844. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2018.1451646
- Schaefli, B. and Gupta, H.V., 2007. Do Nash values have value? Hydrological Processes, 21 (ARTICLE), 2075–2080.
- Setti, S., et al., 2020. Inter-comparison of gauge-based gridded data, reanalysis and satellite precipitation product with an emphasis on hydrological modeling. Atmosphere, 11 (11), 1252.
- Setti, S., Rathinasamy, M., and Chandramouli, S., 2018. Assessment of water balance for a forest dominated coastal river basin in India using a semi distributed hydrological model. Modeling Earth Systems and Environment, 4 (1), 127–140.
- Sleziak, P., et al. (2015). Assessment of the effectiveness of calibrating a conceptual hydrological model in relation to selected catchment characteristics.
- Spruill, C.A., Workman, S.R., and Taraba, J.L., 2000a. Simulation of Daily and Monthly Stream Discharge From Small Watersheds Using the Swat Model. Transactions of the ASAE, 43 (6), 1431–1439.
- Sudheer, K.P., et al., 2007. Impact of time‐scale of the calibration objective function on the performance of watershed models. Hydrological Processes: An International Journal, 21 (25), 3409–3419.
- Troy, T.J., Wood, E.F., and Sheffield, J., 2008. An efficient calibration method for continental-scale land surface modeling. Water Resources Research, 44 (9), 9. doi:https://doi.org/10.1029/2007WR006513
- Wang, Y.I., He, B., and Takase, K., 2009. Effects of temporal resolution on hydrological model parameters and its impact on prediction of river discharge / Effets de la résolution temporelle sur les paramètres d’un modèle hydrologique et impact sur la prévision de l’écoulement en rivière. Hydrological Sciences Journal, 54 (5), 886–898. doi:https://doi.org/10.1623/hysj.54.5.886
- White, K.L. and Chaubey, I., 2005. Sensitivity Analysis, Calibration, and Validations for a Multisite and Multivariable Swat Model. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 41 (5), 1077–1089. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2005.tb03786.x
- Willmott, C.J., 1981. On the validation of models. Physical Geography, 2 (2), 184–194. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/02723646.1981.10642213
- Wu, J., et al., 2017. Detecting the quantitative hydrological response to changes in climate and human activities. Science of the Total Environment, 586, 328–337.
- Xie, H., et al., 2017. Time-varying sensitivity analysis of hydrologic and sediment parameters at multiple timescales: implications for conservation practices. Science of the Total Environment, 598, 353–364. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.04.074
- Yang, X., et al., 2016. Comparison of daily and sub-daily SWAT models for daily streamflow simulation in the Upper Huai River Basin of China. Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment, 30 (3), 959–972.
- Yapo, P.O., Gupta, H.V., and Sorooshian, S., 1996. Automatic calibration of conceptual rainfall-runoff models: sensitivity to calibration data. Journal of Hydrology, 181 (1–4), 23–48.
- Zanon, F., et al., 2010. Hydrological analysis of a flash flood across a climatic and geologic gradient: the September 18, 2007 event in Western Slovenia. Journal of Hydrology, 394 (1–2), 182–197. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2010.08.020