{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.023984526112185687, 'fraction_numerical': 0.022050290135396517, 'mean_word_length': 5.513853904282116, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Runoff Simulation of the Headwaters of the Yellow River Using The SWAT Model With Three Snowmelt Algorithms 1

Abstract:  The Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) model combined with different snowmelt algorithms was evaluated for runoff simulation of an 114,345 km2 mountainous river basin (the headwaters of the Yellow River), where snowmelt is a significant process. The three snowmelt algorithms incorporated into SWAT were as follows: (1) the temperature‐index, (2) the temperature‐index plus elevation band, and (3) the energy budget based SNOW17. The SNOW17 is more complex than the temperature‐based snowmelt algorithms, and requires more detailed meteorological and topographical inputs. In order to apply the SNOW17 in the SWAT framework, SWAT was modified to operate at the pixel scale rather than the normal Hydrologic Response Unit scale. The three snowmelt algorithms were evaluated under two parameter scenarios, the default and the calibrated parameters scenarios. Under the default parameters scenario, the parameter values were determined based on a review of the current literature. The purpose of this type of evaluation was to assess the applicability of SWAT in ungauged basins, where there is little observed data available for calibration. Under the calibrated parameters scenario, the parameters were calibrated using an automatic calibration program, the Shuffled Complex Evolution (SCE‐UA). The purpose of this type of evaluation was to assess the applicability of SWAT in gauged basins. Two time periods (1975‐1985 and 1986‐1990) of monthly runoff data were used in this study to evaluate the performance of SWAT with different snowmelt algorithms. Under the default parameters scenario, the SWAT model with complex energy budget based SNOW17 performed the best for both time periods. Under the calibrated parameters scenario, the parameters were calibrated using monthly runoff from 1975‐1985 and validated using monthly runoff from 1986‐1990. After parameter calibration, the performance of SWAT with the three snowmelt algorithms was improved from the default parameters scenario. Further, the SWAT model with temperature‐index plus elevation band performed as well as the SWAT model with SNOW17. The SWAT model with temperature‐index algorithm performed the poorest for both time periods under both scenarios. Therefore, it is suggested that the SNOW17 model be used for modeling ungauged basins; however, for gauged basins, the SNOW17 and simple temperature‐index plus elevation band models could provide almost equally good runoff simulation results.