Water Yield - incomplete raster results

[292389919]

Im receiving an error during the run of a Water Yield model. The last wyield.tif is only a small part. But the fractp.tif and aet.tif are complete.I’m sure the projection of each picture is the same, and the picture of watershed is larger than others.
InVEST-Hydropower-Water-Yield-log-2021-11-12–01_07_53.txt (515.1 KB)

Attached you can find the log file.

Thank you in advance for the help!

[292389919]

This is biophysical table.biophysical.csv (369 Bytes)

[jesseG]

Hi @292389919 ,

Welcome to the forum!

Thanks for uploading your log file here. From looking at it, my initial diagnosis is that you appear to be encountering a permissions or file size issue. Do you have write access to “E:/WY/2015” and is there ample space there to create the new InVEST output files?

A good test would be to try running the model with a smaller area of interest (smaller spatial extent) and/or to resample your LULC to a coarser resolution before inputting it into the model. This is because all result rasters are resampled to match the cell size of the LULC, thus a coarser LULC input will result in smaller output file sizes.

-Jesse

[292389919]

Hello.I think there’s enough space and access.Do you mean to let me unify into the same cell size such as 1km(my lucc raster). But my other grids don’t have very high resolution. My study area is about 1.2 million square kilometers. Is it possible that something went wrong somewhere else？thank you very much!

[jesseG]

1.2 million square kilometers is a very large area to model at a 1 square kilometer resolution on a personal computer. I would suggest a test of a smaller area or with an LULC resampled to be >1 square kilometer per cell. To debug, you might as well test with an LULC of something like 10 square kilometers or more. From there, you can adjust as necessary.

-Jesse

[dave]

You might look inside the intermediate output folder and examine the rasters in there. If some look okay and some look “small” like your wyield.tif that may help narrow down the problem.

Also it’s always a good idea to update to the latest version of invest if you can (we’re on 3.9.2 now).

[292389919]

The rasters inside the intermediate output folder basically half the size of my LUCC raster, but bigger than the small wyield.tif.

[292389919]

When the LULC resampled to be 10 square kilometer per cell, i found that the size of output wyield.tif is same as before. And the rasters inside the intermediate output folder also incomplete.

[dave]

Thanks for including these screenshots. This does look very strange. If you can share all of your input data (via a google drive / dropbox link, or similar) I can try to reproduce the problem.

[292389919]

Thank you in advance for the help!

[dave]

Thanks for sharing your data. I think I see the problem:

lucc.tif is the one that is shifted to the left. Probably that has an incorrectly defined coordinate system. It’s system is:

PROJCRS["Krasovsky_1940_Albers",
    BASEGEOGCRS["Unknown datum based upon the Krassowsky 1940 ellipsoid",
        DATUM["Not specified (based on Krassowsky 1940 ellipsoid)",
            ELLIPSOID["Krassowsky 1940",6378245,298.3,
                LENGTHUNIT["metre",1]]],
        PRIMEM["Greenwich",0,
            ANGLEUNIT["degree",0.0174532925199433]],
        ID["EPSG",4024]],
    CONVERSION["Albers Equal Area",
        METHOD["Albers Equal Area",
            ID["EPSG",9822]],
        PARAMETER["Latitude of false origin",0,
            ANGLEUNIT["degree",0.0174532925199433],
            ID["EPSG",8821]],
        PARAMETER["Longitude of false origin",105,
            ANGLEUNIT["degree",0.0174532925199433],
            ID["EPSG",8822]],
        PARAMETER["Latitude of 1st standard parallel",25,
            ANGLEUNIT["degree",0.0174532925199433],
            ID["EPSG",8823]],
        PARAMETER["Latitude of 2nd standard parallel",47,
            ANGLEUNIT["degree",0.0174532925199433],
            ID["EPSG",8824]],
        PARAMETER["Easting at false origin",0,
            LENGTHUNIT["metre",1],
            ID["EPSG",8826]],
        PARAMETER["Northing at false origin",0,
            LENGTHUNIT["metre",1],
            ID["EPSG",8827]]],
    CS[Cartesian,2],
        AXIS["easting",east,
            ORDER[1],
            LENGTHUNIT["metre",1,
                ID["EPSG",9001]]],
        AXIS["northing",north,
            ORDER[2],
            LENGTHUNIT["metre",1,
                ID["EPSG",9001]]]]

But again, that’s probably incorrectly defined. If you did some processing of this data, I would recommend going back to the original source of the data and checking it in GIS to confirm it is located in the correct position relative to other datasets you know to be correct. If the original data has this problem too, you may have to guess at the correct coordinate system and define it yourself.

[292389919]

Thank you for solving my problem！