Hi all,

I calculated my ALPHA_BF for a certain gaging station using the SWAT

baseflow filter. However, when I apply the resulting value to the
model, the simulated flows are VERY different from the observed flows
(using the same data / same time period that produced the ALPHA_BF).
I'm wondering if it's "bad" calibration not to use the calculated
ALPHA_BF value (i.e. "should" the ALPHA_BF make the simulation
"better", and since it's not making it better, could that mean my
other parameters are wrong?). Or if I shouldn't worry at all about
the fact that the best simulation is produced with a substantially
different ALPHA_BF.
Thanks!
In my study basin, I found ALPHA_BF is the most important parameter that can
influence the calibration sucessful or not. if its value is too large, the
shallow aquifer can not hold enough water which can totally lose the aquifer
characteristics. It is not very sensitive to streamflow calibration. You are
using baseflow to get the parameter, I think it would be more reliable.

Hi,
thanks so much for the feedback. If I understand you correctly,
you're suggesting it is important that I use the ALPHA_BF that the
baseflow filter calculated? Even though the simulations are poor when
this ALPHA_BF is used?
Rosie,
it all depends on your hydrological understanding of the catchment. You can
always fit the streamflow with some combination of parameters, there are
plenty of parameters to tweak in SWAT. However this does not always mean
that this is a "true" representation of the catchment processes. We will
mostly never know exactly. It is up to you as a hydrologist to make a expert
decision on what you think is the most reasonable based on your
understanding of the actual data.
What does the real catchment tell you. Is it a typical high baseflow
watershed? High flow al year round with only small effects of rainfall with
slow responses and slow recessions. Or a more flashy response with rapid
rise of peaks and rapid responses and little or no baseflow in between the
storms or in summer.

In the end mathematical baseflow separation is a rather unexact science. You

are basically filtering the real data and looking for the low frequency
signal. However if most of your watershed response is through groundwater
than you might be looking at input from a different aquifer or some less
connected part of the aquifer. There are quite a few papers written on
baseflow separation and most acknowledge that the mathematical separation is
only an estimate.
If you have chemcial (such as tracer or cations) data than you could try
using that to constrain your baseflow analysis (see the papers by Hooper).
It might be also worth your while reading some of Beven's theory about
equifinality, or how you can have several sets of calibrated parameters with
equally good fits.
So all calibration also requires some common hydrological sense. If you
think that this is the best representation and you can argue your case than
that is the best calibration.
Hi Rosie,
I would worry about my ALPHA_BF as it is the constant which determines
the slope of the stream flow decline. If using the calculated ALPHA_BF
gives you a wrong result. I think you need to look at the other ground
water parameters (GWQMN, RCHRG_DP, GW_REVAP, REVAPMN...) and also the
the soil properties like the AWC and the saturated hydraulic
conductivity of the soil as they affect the amount of water reacing
the shallow aquifer. But first of all cheking the total amount of
water contributed by the baseflow is equal or nearly equal to the
amount of baseflow you calculated from the measured streamflow would
be a good start.
Hi Willem and Biniam,
thank you very much for the advice--it's greatly appreciated.
The stream appears to have a more flashy hydrograph with relatively
rapid rise of peaks and little baseflow in summer after snowmelt
recharge ends. The cumulative amount of total baseflow I estimated
over a 5-year period is within 2% of the observed total cumulative
baseflow, and the water balance and baseflow index calculated from the
output.std files comes in very closely to reported values for this
stream. I am re-running the baseflow-filter calculated ALPHA_BF on a

saved copy of a simulation without any other SWAT parameters adjusted

to try to get at the effect of the ALPHA_BF alone.
Thanks, everyone!
Hi all,
so it looks like simulations with the ALPHA_BF calculated with the
TAMU baseflow filter program actually fits much of the observed
baseflow well, when other SWAT parameters have not yet been adjusted.
However, it results in a much poorer Nash-Sutcliffe for surface and
total flows. My surface flows still have much better Nash-Sutcliffe
and R2 with other simulations in which the ALPHA_BF is higher. In
these simulations with the higher ALPHA_BF, the total amount of
baseflow, water balance, and baseflow index appear to be just about
"right," and the Nash-Sutcliffe and R2 are still quite good, even
though I'm not using the calculated ALPHA_BF.
Using the ALPHA_BF calculated with TAMU would mean re-tracing my steps
and working very hard to get Nash-Sutcliffes and R2 as good as the
ones I had previously with the "wrong" ALPHA_BF. My question is, is
it worth it to re-trace? Will using the "wrong" ALPHA_BF cause me
problems down the line--for example, if I'm modeling nitrate or other
groundwater-transported contaminants? Or is the fact that my baseflow
is modeled pretty well, even with the "wrong" ALPHA_BF, mean that this
should be okay?
Thank you, all!!!
Rosie -I don't think I'd re-do everything -- if baseflow is about right, then presumably
you've got the quantity of groundwater about right. If the rate of hydrograph
recession is a bit off, that may be a small price to pay. I've never seen a lot of effect
of changing ALPHA_BF in my models -- I believe the reports that it can be a sensitive
parameter, but I just haven't seen in my models. I'm not sure why...
Cheers,

Can I respectfully disagree with Jim? I think that for water quality
simulations the right baseflow could be very important. Baseflow is just one
of the water path ways but since the water balance is closed it means water
is not going somewhere else.
I agree with Jim that if the difference is small there should not be a
problme, but if there are large differences than the water pathways are
quite different and this means that it also transports things like Nitrate

differently. All this might not be a problem in your calibration if you

calibrate on both Nitrate and flow, but it could be a problem if you are
validating or making forward predictions.
In the end it is up to you. You should assess whether the peak flows are
more important from a water quality perspective (greater load) or that the
baseflow is more important (continuous and delayed response of pollutants).
Willem
yes, I agree with you Willem. streamflow is combination of baseflow and
overland flow, the two components could be totally opposite to the real
situation even though the streamflow simulation is right. I am not sure if
nutrients incorporation would improve the calibration since its obeservation
is also from streamflow. The baseflow seperation seems a direct way to
contrain the baseflow component. but as disscussed above, people doubt about
the calcualtion accuracy. what I used is well elevation flucuations, which
is fit with aqufier storage variations. My clabration exclude a lot of
models which give excellent streamflow but with unacceptable baseflow
simulations.

ll -Just to follow up -- I think we all agree that the quantity of baseflow is very important to try and
match, which is essentially the same as saying it's important to get the right partitioning between
groundwater and surface runoff contributions to streamflow. This is especially true for water
quality considerations, as Willem noted.
Over an annual water-cycle under equilibrated conditions (no net changes in water storage),
ALPHA_BF says nothing about the total quantity of baseflow -- the total quantity of baseflow
will be controlled by the net infiltration that eventually recharges the aquifer. To a large degree,
output (as baseflow) will equal input (as recharge).
ALPHA_BF does control the rate of release of groundwater from shallow aquifer storage -and so it therefore influences the mix of groundwater & other flow (overland runoff and lateral
flow) in the channel at any one time. If you've got enough water-quality samples to follow how
the mix of groundwater and surface water changes during hydrograph recession, then fine-tuning
ALPHA_BF could be critical. I add that GW_DELAY also influences when baseflow is released
(by delaying when infiltration is tallied as recharge), and thus also must influence the mix of
groundwater and surface water in the channel as well.
So -- does that make sense? Did I misrepresent anything?
Hi jim and others,
It is a complicated problem, becasue a lot of parameters would impact the
baseflow, finally to the streamflow. As far as the ALPHA-BF and GW-DELAY are
concerned, the former is more important to baseflow generation. Because it

is always working and influencing the baseflow quantity untill there is no

water left in aquifer. GW-DELAY is different, it lose impaction during dry
seasons when there is no water recharge to acquifers. Besides,
ALPHA-BF is in a expontential terms, it impacts more than
a linear impactor. It depends on how we understand our study area. I would
rather to adjust ALPHA-BF because it is more sensitive.