Fig 1.
The geographic position of USGS hydrological stations, NCDC meteorological stations, and principal rivers in the IRW.
Fig 2.
a) DEM, b) LULC, c) Soil, and d) USGS station, river and weather station map in the IRW.
Table 1.
Watershed properties of selected USGS stations.
Fig 3.
Average monthly runoff coefficient on 13 subwatersheds in the IRW.
Fig 4.
Average monthly streamflow at 13 hydrologic stations.
Fig 5.
Research flowchart of streamflow prediction by SWAT-SVR and SWAT-CUP.
Table 2.
Evaluation indicators of the model performance and their mathematic expressions†.
Table 3.
Performance ratings of recommended statistics for streamflow simulations e.g Moriasi et al [54].
Table 4.
Calibration performance of streamflow simulations by SWAT-SVR and SWAT-CUP during the wet and dry seasons.
Fig 6.
Comparison of performance ratings during the wet (a) and dry (b) seasons between SWAT-SVR and SWAT-CUP.
(Performance Rating: V: Very good, G: Good, S: Satisfactory, Uns: Unsatisfactory).
Fig 7.
Flow duration curves of observed versus simulated monthly streamflow during the wet and dry season with the SWAT-SVR model.
Fig 8.
SWAT-SVR model performance ratings during the (a) wet and (b) dry season.
Fig 9.
The relation between estimation indicators and the upstream drainage area during the wet and dry season by validated SWAT-SVR.
Table 5.
Overall performance ratings by SWAT-SVR and SWAT-CUP after combining wet and dry simulations.
Fig 10.
Monthly streamflow time series from observation and validated simulation by SWAT-SVM and SWAT-CUP.
(The blue shade part represents the dry season from July to December).