Influence of multisite calibration on streamflow estimation based on the hydrological model with CMADS inputs
Due to the spatial heterogeneity, the hydrological model calibration results only at the total outlet of the basin may not represent the whole basin. To more accurately simulate the historical streamflow process within the Qujiang River Basin, we set up three calibration strategies (single-site, S1;...
Guardado en:
| Autores principales: | , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | article |
| Lenguaje: | EN |
| Publicado: |
IWA Publishing
2021
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://doaj.org/article/8392b4c594b84ec6a536797057187a71 |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| Sumario: | Due to the spatial heterogeneity, the hydrological model calibration results only at the total outlet of the basin may not represent the whole basin. To more accurately simulate the historical streamflow process within the Qujiang River Basin, we set up three calibration strategies (single-site, S1; multisite simultaneous, S2; and multisite sequential, S3) for four hydrological stations based on the SWAT (Soil and Water Assessment Tool) model driven by CMADS (China Meteorological Assimilation Driving Datasets for the SWAT model). In addition, the implications of these calibration issues are extended to future streamflow projections using multimodel ensemble data in CMIP6 (Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6). In the model calibration phase, the SWAT model achieved very satisfactory results in the study area. Compared with S1 and S2, S3 can effectively improve the accuracy of streamflow simulation of stations within the basin and reduce the simulation deviation. Especially at the daily scale, the average NSE values of the four stations with S3 increased by 0.26 and 0.07, and the overall deviation decreased by 0.25 and 6.43%, respectively. Parameter sensitivity analysis also shows that spatial heterogeneity can be more adequately considered when using S3 to calibrate the model. As for the results of future streamflow projection, when using the S3, the average annual streamflow of four stations in the three climate scenarios from 2021 to 2050 is about 44.21, 130.00, 321.55 and 713.24 m3/s, respectively. Correspondingly, the use of S1 and S2 would bring certain risks to future water resource management. HIGHLIGHTS
Set up single-site (S1), multisite simultaneous (S2) and multisite sequential (S3) calibration strategies to explore the discrepancy of streamflow simulation of four stations.;
The SWAT model is driven by CMADS data input.;
The impact of three strategies on future streamflow projection is discussed with CMIP6.;
Parameter sensitivity analysis shows that spatial heterogeneity can be more adequately considered using S3 to calibrate the model.; |
|---|