(2009) and are located inside the interval reported by the Jucar River Basin Authority (2013), it can be concluded that the model has been well calibrated with respect to the groundwater recharge. 9.7: SANZ ET AL JUCAR RIVER BASIN VARIABLE SWAT (2010) (2013) Groundwater recharge 310 Mm3 320 Mm3 238-334 Mm3 After that, the crop behavior provided by SWAT through the irrigation demands has been compared with the ones expected. First SWAT simulation crop irrigation demands were lower than expected, and therefore the crop yields parameters have been modified in order to reproduce as close as possible the expected irrigation demands. As can be seen in Table 9.8, the final SWAT irrigation demand values closely resemble the expected ones, and therefore the SWAT model is adequately reproducing the crop yields. 9.8: SWAT IRRIGATION (mm) YIELD (Tn/ha) CROP TYPE SWAT EXPECTED SWAT EXPECTED Wheat 363 350 420 7.2 7 8 – – Onion 572 550 620 5.1 4.5 5.5 – – Corn 552 500 600 12.2 12 13 – – Sugarbee 827 800 900 12.8 12.5 13.5 – – Barley 282 250 350 8.6 8 9 – – Alfalfa 782 750 850 12.1 11.5 12.5 – – With regard to nitrate leaching, there is no possible comparison with historical data, given that there are no historical records. However, as this output is essential for the MT3D calculations, SWAT results must be checked before introducing them into one different model. In order to proceed to that comparison, the nitrate leaching values obtained by the SWAT model, for each crop type, have been compared with the ones provided in previous studies about nitrate leaching associated to different crop types, in which the GEPIC software was used (Martin-Benlloch, 2012) to estimate their leaks. As can be seen in Table 9.9, the SWAT results are located inside the confidence intervals that correspond to each crop, meaning that the SWAT model is adequately reproducing the behaviour associated to the previously validated GEPIC model. 9.9: SWAT GEPIC LEACHING (Kg NO3/ha) CROP TYPE SWAT 53 45 85 – Onion 114 100 120 –
(2009) and are located inside the interval reported by the Jucar River Basin Authority (2013), it can be concluded that the model has been well calibrated with respect to the groundwater recharge. 9.7: VARIABLE SWAT SANZ ET AL (2010) JUCAR RIVER BASIN (2013) Groundwater recharge 310 Mm3 320 Mm3 238-334 Mm3 After that, the crop behavior provided by SWAT through the irrigation demands has been compared with the ones expected. First SWAT simulation crop irrigation demands were lower than expected, and therefore the crop yields parameters have been modified in order to reproduce as close as possible the expected irrigation demands. As can be seen in Table 9.8, the final SWAT irrigation demand values closely resemble the expected ones, and therefore the SWAT model is adequately reproducing the crop yields. 9.8: SWAT CROP TYPE IRRIGATION (mm) YIELD (Tn/ha) SWAT EXPECTED SWAT EXPECTED Wheat 363 350 – 420 7.2 7 – 8 Onion 572 550 – 620 5.1 4.5 – 5.5 Corn 552 500 – 600 12.2 12 – 13 Sugarbee 827 800 – 900 12.8 12.5 – 13.5 Barley 282 250 – 350 8.6 8 – 9 Alfalfa 782 750 – 850 12.1 11.5 – 12.5 With regard to nitrate leaching, there is no possible comparison with historical data, given that there are no historical records. However, as this output is essential for the MT3D calculations, SWAT results must be checked before introducing them into one different model. In order to proceed to that comparison, the nitrate leaching values obtained by the SWAT model, for each crop type, have been compared with the ones provided in previous studies about nitrate leaching associated to different crop types, in which the GEPIC software was used (Martin-Benlloch, 2012) to estimate their leaks. As can be seen in Table 9.9, the SWAT results are located inside the confidence intervals that correspond to each crop, meaning that the SWAT model is adequately reproducing the behaviour associated to the previously validated GEPIC model. 9.9: SWAT GEPIC CROP TYPE LEACHING (Kg NO3/ha) SWAT 53 45 – 85 Onion 114 100 – 120
D%205.4.docx