Advances in the application of the SWAT model for water resources management

By R. Jayakrishnan, Raghavan Srinivasan, C. Santhi, Jeffrey G. Arnold. 2005

334 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

For services rendered? Modeling hydrology and livelihoods in Andean payments for environmental services schemes (2009, positive): “Runoff parameters, water-holding capacity and saturated hydraulic conductivity have shown high sensitivity in other studies (i.e. Lenhart et al., 2005; Jayakrishnan et al., 2005; Govender and Everson, 2005; Heuvelmans et al., 2005).”
Evaluating the application of the statistical index method in flood susceptibility mapping and its comparison with frequency ratio and logistic regression methods (2018, methodology): “Some of the most popular methods can be categorized into four main groups of hydrological-based (Liu and De Smedt 2004; Jayakrishnan et al. 2005), quantitative”
The Soil and Water Assessment Tool: Historical Development, Applications, and Future Research Directions (2007, background): “Other factors that may adversely affect SWAT hydrologic predictions include a lack of model calibration (Bosch et al., 2004; Jayakrishnan et al., 2005), inaccuracies in measured streamflow data (Harmel et al., 2006), and relatively short calibration and validation periods (Muleta and Nicklow,…”