Ukr. geogr. z. 2017, N3:47-56
Language of publication: 
V.V. Osypov - Ukrainian Hydrometeorological Institute State Service of Ukraine on Emergencies and National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Kyiv;
N.M. Osadcha - Ukrainian Hydrometeorological Institute State Service of Ukraine on Emergencies and National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Kyiv.
The article presents a practical application of the SWAT model (Soil and Water Assessment Tool) to assess the nutrient emission from the catchment area of rivers from distributed sources. The small Holovesnya catchment was used for the model adaptation for the conditions of forest zone of Ukraine. The study area is situated on the territory of the Desna water-balance station that ensures the availability of long-term series of observations over hydrological, hydrogeological and meteorological parameters used by SWAT. The calibration and validation of the model are made using the auto-calibration software SWAT-CUP. The model performance efficiency was assessed by the following criteria: Nash–Sutcliffe coefficient (NS), the coefficient of determination (R2), the percentage of bias (PBIAS) and the RMSE-observations (root mean square error) standard deviation ratio (RSR). Simulation of water runoff in different phases of water content was performed and the leaching of nitrogen and phosphorus compounds was estimated. The role of mineral fertilizers application in formation of nutrient runoff was determined for the studied basin. The proposed model can be used to prepare river management plans and develop a program of measures to reduce the pollution of water ecosystems by nutrients from distributed sources.
Key words: 
SWAT, nitrogen, phosphorus, nutrient emission
1. Medvedev V.V. (2012). Monitoring of soils in Ukraine. Concept. Results. Tasks. Kharkov. [In Russian]. [Медведев В.В. Мониторинг почв Украины. Концепция. Итоги. Задачи. (2-ое пересмотренное и дополненное издание). Харьков», 2012. 536 с.]
2. Abbaspour K.C. (2007). User manual for SWAT-CUP, SWAT calibration and uncertainty analysis programs. Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology (Eawag), Duebendorf, Switzerland.
3. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Task Committee on Definition of Criteria for Evaluation of Watershed Models, Irrigation and Drainage Division (1993). Criteria for evaluation of watershed models. J. Irrigation Drainage Eng., 119(3), 429-442.
4. Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment. URL: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/1991/271/oj
5. Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources. URL: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/1991/676/oj
6. Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for the Community action in the field of water policy. URL: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/index_en.html
7. Dodds W. (2006). Eutrophication and trophic state in rivers and streams. Limnol Oceanogr, 51, 671–680.
8. European Environment Agency. (2015). The European environment — state and outlook 2015: synthesis report. Copenhagen, Denmark.
9. European Topic Centre. Inland, Coastal, Marine waters (ETC/ICM). (2012). Ecological and chemical status and pressures in European waters: Thematic assessment for EEA water 2012 Report. URL: http://icm.eionet.europa.eu/ETC_Reports/EcoChemStatusPressInEurWaters_201211
10. Gupta, H.V., Sorooshian, S., Yapo, P.O. (1999). Status of automatic calibration for hydrologic models: comparison with multilevel expert calibration. Journal of Hydrological Engineering, 4(2), 135 – 143.
11. ICPDR. (2015). The Danube River Basin District Management Plan. URL: https://www.icpdr.org/main/management-plans-danube-river-basin-published
12. Malago A., Venhor M., Gericke A., Vigiak O., Bouraoui F., Grizzetti B., Kovacs A. (2015). Modelling nutrient pollution in the Danube River Basin: a comparative study of SWAT, MONERIS and GREEN models. Joint Research Centre technical reports, JRC99193. http//doi. org 10.2788/156278
13. Moriasi D.N., Arnold J.G., Van Liew M.W., Bingner R.L., Harmel R.D., Veith T.L. (2007). Model evaluation guidelines for systematic quantification of accuracy in watershed simulations. Am. Soc. Agric. Biol. Eng., 50 (3), 885 –900.
14. Nash J. E., Sutcliffe J. V. (1970). River flow forecasting through conceptual models: Part 1. A discussion of principles. J. Hydrology, 10(3), 282-290.
15. Szolgayova E., Parajka J., Blöschl G., Bucher C. (2014). Long term variability of the Danube River flow and its relation to precipitation and air temperature. Journal of Hydrology, 519, 871-880. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.07.047
16. The State Service of Ukraine for Geodesy, Cartography and Cadastre. Soil types map. URL: http://map.land.gov.ua/kadastrova-karta
17. United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2005). Total Maximum Daily Loads Model Evaluation and Research Needs. 600/R-05/149.
18. Wellen C., Kamran-Disfani A.-R., Arhonditsis G.B. (2015). Evaluation of the current state of distributed watershed nutrient water quality modeling. Environ. Sci. Technol, 49, 3278−3290.