|
|
|
Çѱ¹¼öÀÚ¿øÇÐȸ / v.41, no.11, 2008³â, pp.1079-1094
|
SWAT¸ðÇü¿¡¼ °ø°£ ÀÔ·ÂÀÚ·áÀÇ ´Ù¾çÇÑ ÇØ»óµµ¿¡ µû¸¥ ¼ö¹®-¼öÁú ¸ðÀǰá°úÀÇ ºñ±³ºÐ¼®
( Comparative Analysis of SWAT Generated Streamflow and Stream Water Quality Using Different Spatial Resolution Data ) |
| ¹ÚÁ¾À±;À̹̼±;¹Ú±Ù¾Ö;±è¼ºÁØ; °Ç±¹´ëÇб³ ´ëÇпø »çȸȯ°æ½Ã½ºÅÛ°øÇаú;°Ç±¹´ëÇб³ ´ëÇпø Áö¿ª°Ç¼³È¯°æ°øÇаú;°Ç±¹´ëÇб³ ´ëÇпø »çȸȯ°æ½Ã½ºÅÛ°øÇаú;°Ç±¹´ëÇб³ »ý¸íȯ°æ°úÇдëÇÐ »çȸȯ°æ½Ã½ºÅÛ°øÇаú;
|
|
|
 |
|
| |
| ÃÊ ·Ï |
| º» ¿¬±¸´Â ³óÃ̼ÒÀ¯¿ª(1.21 $km^2$)¿¡¼ ´Ù¾çÇÑ °ø°£ÀÔ·ÂÀÚ·áÀÇ ÇØ»óµµ°¡ SWAT(Soil and Water Assessment Tool) ¸ðÇüÀÇ ¼ö¹®-¼öÁú ¸ðÀǰá°ú¿¡ ¹ÌÄ¡´Â ¿µÇâÀ» ºÐ¼®ÇϰíÀÚ Case A(2 m DEM, QucikBird ÅäÁöÀ̿뵵, 1/25,000 Åä¾çµµ), Case B(10 m DEM, 1/25,000 ÅäÁöÀ̿뵵, 1/25,000 Åä¾çµµ), Case C(30 m DEM, Landsat ÅäÁöÀ̿뵵, 1/25,000 Åä¾çµµ)¿¡ ÇØ´çÇÏ´Â ÇØ»óµµº° °ø°£ÀÔ·ÂÀڷḦ ±¸ÃàÇÏ¿´´Ù. ¸ðÇüÀÇ Àû¿ë¼º Æò°¡´Â °æ¾ÈõÀ¯¿ª(255.44 $km^2$) ÃⱸÁ¡¿¡¼ ÀϺ° À¯Ãâ·® ¹× ¿ùº° ¼öÁúÀڷḦ ÀÌ¿ëÇÏ¿© º¸Á¤($1999{sim}2000$)ÇÏ¿´À¸¸ç, $2001{sim}2002$³â ÀڷḦ ÀÌ¿ëÇÏ¿© °ËÁõÇÏ¿´´Ù. À¯Ãâ·®¿¡ ´ëÇÑ Nash-Sutcliffe ¸ðÇüÈ¿À²Àº Æò±Õ 0.59ÀÇ °á°ú¸¦ ¾ò¾úÀ¸¸ç, Sediment, T-N, T-P ºÎÇÏ·®Àº °¢°¢ 2.08, 4.30, 0.70 tons/yrÀÇ RMSE ¿ÀÂ÷·Î °Ëº¸Á¤µÇ¾ú´Ù. ³óÃ̼ÒÀ¯¿ªÀ» ´ë»óÀ¸·Î ´Ù¾çÇÑ °ø°£ÀÚ·á(Case A, B, C)¸¦ Àû¿ëÇÏ¿© ¼ö¹®, ¼öÁú¸ðÀǸ¦ ½Ç½ÃÇÑ °á°ú, À¯Ãâ·®Àº ÅäÁöÀ̿뵵 ÇØ»óµµ¿¡ ÀÇÇÑ ¸ðÀǰá°úÀÇ ºÒÈ®½Ç¼ºÀÌ °¡Àå Å« °ÍÀ¸·Î ºÐ¼®µÇ¾ú´Ù. QuickBird ÅäÁöÀ̿뵵ÀÇ À¯¿ªÆò±Õ CN°ªÀÌ 1/25,000°ú Landsat ÅäÁöÀ̿뿡 ºñÇØ 0.4, 1.8 ´õ Å©°Ô ºÐ¼®µÊÀ¸·Î¼ ÃÑÀ¯Ãâ·®µµ Áõ°¡ÇÏ¿´´Ù. ÇÑÆí, À¯»ç·®°ú ¿µ¿µ¹°Áú ¿À¿°ºÎÇÏ·®¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ¼öÁú¸ðÀÇ °á°ú´Â QuickBird(Case A) ÅäÁöÀ̿뵵ÀÇ À¯»ç·® ¹× T-N, T-P ºÎÇÏ·®ÀÌ 1/25,000(Case B) ÅäÁöÀ̿뵵¿¡ ºñÇØ 23.7 %, 43.3 %, 48.4 %, Landsat(Case C) ÅäÁöÀ̿뵵¿¡ ºñÇØ 50.6 %, 50.8 %, 56.9 % ³ô°Ô Æò°¡µÇ´Â °ÍÀ¸·Î ºÐ¼®µÇ¾ú´Ù. |
|
| This study is to evaluate the impact of varying spatial resolutions on the uncertainty of Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) predicted streamflow, non-point source (NPS) pollution loads transport in a small agricultural watershed (1.21 $km^2$) for three cases of model input; Case A is the combination of 2 m DEM, QuickBird land use, Case B is the combination of 10 m DEM, 1/25,000 land use, and Case C is the combination of 30 m DEM, Landsat land use, soil data is used 1/25,000 for three cases respectively. The model was calibrated for 2 years (1999-2000) using daily streamflow and monthly water quality records, and verified for another 2 years (2001-2002). The average Nash and Sutcliffe model efficiency was 0.59 for streamflow and RMSE were 2.08, 4.30 and 0.70 tons/yr for sediment, T-N and T-P respectively. The model was run for a small agricultural watershed with three cases of spatial input data. The hydrological results showed that output uncertainty was biggest by spatial resolution of land use. Streamflow increase the watershed average CN value of QucikBird land use was 0.4 and 1.8 higher than those of 1/25,000 and Landsat land use caused increase of streamflow. On the other hand, The NPS loadings from the model prediction showed that the sediment, T-N and T-P of QuickBird land use (Case A) showed 23.7 %, 43.3 % and 48.4 % higher value than 1/25,000 land use (Case B) and 50.6 %, 50.8 % and 56.9 % higher value than Landsat land use (Case C) respectively. |
| |
| Ű¿öµå |
| °ø°£ÇØ»óµµ;ºÒÈ®½Ç¼º;ÀÔ·ÂÀÚ·á;¼ö¹®-¼öÁú ¸ðµ¨¸µ;Spatial Resolution;Output Uncertainty;Input Data;Modeling;QuickBird;SWAT; |
| |
|
|
 |
|
Çѱ¹¼öÀÚ¿øÇÐȸ³í¹®Áý / v.41, no.11, 2008³â, pp.1079-1094
Çѱ¹¼öÀÚ¿øÇÐȸ
ISSN : 1226-6280
UCI : G100:I100-KOI(KISTI1.1003/JNL.JAKO200834753088125)
¾ð¾î : Çѱ¹¾î |
|
| ³í¹® Á¦°ø : KISTI Çѱ¹°úÇбâ¼úÁ¤º¸¿¬±¸¿ø |
|
|
|
|
|
|