Impact of limited streamflow data on the efficiency and the parameters of rainfall-runoff models

Hydrological Sciences Journal

Volumn 52, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 131-151

  Perrin, Charles ^a   Oudin, Ludovic ^b   Andreassian, Vazken ^a   Rojas Serna, Claudia ^a,d   Michel, Claude ^a   Mathevet, Thibault ^c  

^a Procédés biotechnologiques au service de l'environnement   (France)

^b SORBONNE UNIVERSITÉ   (France)

^c EDF R AND D   (France)

^d INSTITUTO MEXICANO DE TECNOLOGÍA DEL AGUA   (Mexico)

Author keywords

Calibration; Rainfall runoff modelling; Sampling; Sensitivity analysis; Streamflow data

Indexed keywords

CATCHMENTS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; RAIN; RUNOFF; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS;

PARAMETER CALIBRATION; RAINFALL-RUNOFF MODELLING; STREAMFLOW DATA;

STREAM FLOW;

CATCHMENT; DATA SET; RAINFALL-RUNOFF MODELING; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; STREAMFLOW;

EID: 33846846431     PISSN: 02626667     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1623/hysj.52.1.131     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Allred, B. & Haan, C. T. (1991) Variability of optimized parameter estimates based on observed record length. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Engrs 34(6), 2421-2426.
2. Anctil, F., Perrin, C. & Andréassian, V. (2004) Impact of the length of observed records on the performance of ANN and of conceptual parsimonious rainfall-runoff forecasting models. Environ. Model. Software 19(4), 357-368.
3. Andréassian, V., Perrin, C., Michel, C., Usart-Sanchez, I. & Lavabre, J. (2001) Impact of imperfect rainfall knowledge on the efficiency and the parameters of watershed models. J. Hydrol. 250, 206-223.
4. Andréassian, V., Perrin, C. & Michel, C. (2004) Impact of imperfect potential evapotranspiration knowledge on the efficiency and parameters of watershed models. J. Hydrol. 286(1/4), 19-35.
5. Bastidas, L. A., Gupta, H. V. & Sorooshian, S. (2002) Emerging paradigms in the calibration of hydrologic models. In: Mathematical Models of Large Watershed Hydrology (ed. by V. P. Singh & D. K. Frevert), 23-66. Water Resources Publications, Highlands Ranch, Colorado, USA
6. Beven, K. J. & Kirkby, M. J. (1979) A physically-based, variable contributing area model of basin hydrology. Hydrol. Sci. Bull. 24(1), 43-69.
7. Borah, A. & Haan, C. T. (1991) Impact of parameter data errors on parameter estimation in hydrologic modeling. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Engrs 34(3), 857-864.
8. Brath, A., Montanari, A. & Toth, E. (2004) Analysis of the effects of different scenarios of historical data availability on the calibration of a spatially-distributed hydrological model. J. Hydrol. 291(3/4), 232-253.
9. Butts, M. B., Payne, J. T., Kristensen, M. & Madsen, H. (2004) An evaluation of the impact of model structure on hydrological modelling uncertainty for streamflow simulation. J. Hydrol. 298(1/4), 242-266.
10. Duan, Q., Gupta, H. V., Sorooshian, S., Rousseau, A. N. & Turcotte, R. (2002) Calibration of Watershed Models. Water Series and Application no. 6. American Geophysical Union, Washington DC, USA.
11. Edijatno, Nascimento, N. O., Yang, X., Makhlouf, Z. & Michel, C. (1999) GR3J: a daily watershed model with three free parameters. Hydrol. Sci. J. 44(2), 263-277.
12. Farnsworth, R. K., Thompson, E. S. & Peck, E. L. (1982) Evaporation atlas for the contiguous 48 United States. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Weather Service, NOAA Tech. report NWS no. 33, Washington DC, USA.
13. Franchini, M., Wendling, J., Obled, C. & Todini, E. (1996) Physical interpretation and sensitivity analysis of the TOPMODEL. J. Hydrol. 175, 293-338.
14. Gan, T. Y. & Biftu, G. F. (1996) Automatic calibration of conceptual rainfall-runoff models: optimization algorithms, catchment conditions, and model structure. Water Resour. Res. 32(12), 3513-3524.
15. Harlin, J. (1991) Development of a process oriented calibration scheme for the HBV hydrological model. Nordic Hydrol. 22(1), 15-36.
16. Ibbitt, R. P. (1972) Effects of random data errors on the parameter values for a conceptual model. Water Resour. Res. 8(1), 70-78.
17. Jakeman, A. J. & Letcher, R. A. (2003) Integrated assessment and modelling: features, principles and examples for catchment management. Environ. Model. Software 18(6), 491-501.
18. Jothityangkoon, C., Sivapalan, M. & Farmer, D. L. (2001) Process controls of water balance variability in a large semi-arid catchment: downward approach to hydrological model development. J. Hydrol. 254(1/ 4), 174-198.
19. Kim, S. H. & Delleur, J. W. (1997) Sensitivity analysis of extended TOPMODEL for agricultural watersheds equipped with tile drains. Hydrol. Processes 11(9), 1243-1261.
20. Kumar, R., Chatterjee, C., Lohani, A. K., Kumar, S. & Singh, R. D. (2002) Sensitivity analysis of the GIUH based Clark model for a catchment. Water Resour. Manage. 16(4), 263-278.
21. Lidén, R. & Harlin, J. (2000) Analysis of conceptual rainfall-runoff modelling performance in different climates. J. Hydrol. 238, 231-247.
22. Lidén, R., Harlin, J., Karlsson, M. & Rahmberg, M. (2001) Hydrological modelling of fine sediments in the Odzi River, Zimbabwe. Water SA 27(3), 303-314.
23. Mathevet, T. (2005) Quels modèles pluie-débit globaux pour le pas de temps horaire? Développement empirique et comparaison de modèles sur un large échantillon de bassins versants. PhD Thesis, ENGREF (Paris), Cemagref (Antony), France.
24. Merritt, W. S., Croke, B. F. W. & Jakeman, A. J. (2005) Sensitivity testing of a model for exploring water resources utilisation and management options. Environ. Model. Software 20(8), 1013-1030.
25. Michaud, J. & Sorooshian, S. (1994) Comparison of simple versus complex distributed runoff models on a midsized semiarid watershed. Water Resour. Res. 30(3), 593-605.
26. Michel, C., Perrin, C. & Andréassian, V. (2003) The exponential store: a correct formulation for rainfall-runoff modelling. Hydrol. Sci. J. 48(1), 109-124.
27. Mwakalila, S., Campling, P., Feyen, J., Wyseure, G. & Beven, K. (2001) Application of a data-based mechanistic modelling (DBM) approach for predicting runoff generation in semi-arid regions. Hydrol. Processes 15(12), 2281-2295.
28. Nascimento, N. O. (1995) Appréciation à l'aide d'un modèle empirique des effets d'action anthropiques sur la relation pluie-débit à l'échelle du bassin versant. PhD Thesis, CERGRENE/ENPC, Paris, France.
29. Nash, J. E. & Sutcliffe, J. V. (1970) River flow forecasting through conceptual models. Part I - A discussion of principles. J. Hydrol. 27(3), 282-290.
30. Oudin, L., Michel, C. & Anctil, F. (2005) Which potential evapotranspiration input for a rainfall-runoff model? Part 1: Can rainfall-runoff models effectively handle detailed potential evapotranspiration inputs? J. Hydrol. 303(1/4), 275-289.
31. Perrin, C. (2000) Vers une amélioration d'un modèle global pluie-débit au travers d'une approche comparative. PhD Thesis, INPG (Grenoble), Cemagref (Antony), France.
32. Perrin, C., Michel, C. & Andréassian, V. (2003) Improvement of a parsimonious model for streamflow simulation. J. Hydrol. 279(1/4), 275-289.
33. Refsgaard, J. C., Henriksen, H. J., Harrar, W. G., Scholten, H. & Kassahun, A. (2005) Quality assurance in model based water management - review of existing practice and outline of new approaches. Environ. Model. Software 20(10), 1201-1215.
34. Rojas-Serna, C. (2005) Quelle connaissance hydrométrique minimale pour définir les paramètres d'un modèle pluie-débit? PhD Thesis, Cemagref (Antony), ENGREF (Paris), France.
35. Rojas-Serna, C., Michel, C., Perrin, C. & Andréassian, V. (2006) Ungauged catchments: how to make the most of a few measurements? In: Large Sample Basin Experiments of Hydrological Model Parameterization: Results of the Model Parameter Estimation Experiment (ed. by V. Andréassian, A. Hall, N. Chahinian & J. Schaake), 230-236. IAHS Publ. 307. IAHS Press, Wallingford, UK.
36. Saltelli, A., Chan, K. & Scott, E. M. (2000) Sensitivity Analysis. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester, UK.
37. Servat, E., Najem, W., Leduc, C. & Shakeel, A. (eds) (2003) Hydrology in Mediterranean and Semiarid Regions. IAHS Publ. 278. IAHS Press, Wallingford, UK.
38. Sieber, A. & Uhlenbrook, S. (2005) Sensitivity analyses of a distributed catchment model to verify the model structure. J. Hydrol. 310(1/4), 216-235.
39. Singh, V. P. & Woolhiser, D. A. (2002) Mathematical modeling of watershed hydrology. J. Hydrol. Engng ASCE 7(4), 270-292.
40. Sivapalan, M. (2003) Prediction in ungauged basins: a grand challenge for theoretical hydrology. Hydrol. Processes 17(15), 3163-3170.
41. Sivapalan, M., Takeuchi, K., Franks, S. W., Gupta, V. K., Karambiri, H., Lakshmi, V., Liang, X., McDonnell, J. J., Mendiondo, E. M., O'Connell, P. E., Oki, T., Pomeroy, J. W., Schertzer, D., Uhlenbrook, S. & Zehe, E. (2003) IAHS decade on Predictions in Ungauged Basins (PUB), 2003-2012: Shaping an exciting future for the hydrological sciences. Hydrol. Sci. J. 48(6), 857-880.
42. Sorooshian, S. & Gupta, V. K. (1995) Model calibration. In: Computer Models of Watershed Hydrology (ed. by V. P. Singh), Ch. 2, 23-68. Water Resources Publications, Littleton, Colorado, USA.
43. Sorooshian, S., Gupta, V. K. & Fulton, J. L. (1983) Evaluation of maximum likelihood parameter estimation techniques for conceptual rainfall-runoff models: influence of calibration data variability and length on model credibility. Water Resour. Res. 19(1), 251-259.
44. Vrugt, J. A., Bouten, W., Gupta, H. V. & Sorooshian, S. (2002) Toward improved identifiability of hydrologic model parameters: the information content of experimental data. Water Resour. Res. 38(12), 1312, doi:10.1029/2001WR001118.
45. Vrugt, J. A., Diks, C. G. H., Gupta, H. V., Bouten, W. & Verstraten, J. M. (2005) Improved treatment of uncertainty in hydrologic modeling: combining the strengths of global optimization and data assimilation. Water Resour. Res. 41(1), W01017,doi:10.1029/2004WR003059.
46. Wagener, T., Boyle, D. P., Lees, M. J., Wheater, H. S., Gupta, H. V. & Sorooshian, S. (2001) A framework for development and application of hydrological models. Hydrol. Earth System Sci. 5(1), 13-26.
47. Wagener, T., McIntyre, N., Lees, M. J., Wheater, H. S. & Gupta, H. V. (2003) Towards reduced uncertainty in conceptual rainfall-runoff modelling: dynamic identifiability analysis. Hydrol. Processes 17(2), 455-476.
48. Xia, Y. L., Yang, Z. L., Jackson, C., Stoffa, P. L. & Sen, M. K. (2004) Impacts of data length on optimal parameter and uncertainty estimation of a land surface model. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 109, D07101, doi:10.1029/2003JD004419.
49. Yapo, P. O., Gupta, H. V. & Sorooshian, S. (1996) Automatic calibration of conceptual rainfall-runoff models: sensitivity to calibration data. J. Hydrol. 181, 23-48.
50. Ye, W., Bates, B. C., Viney, N. R., Sivapalan, M. & Jakeman, A. J. (1997) Performance of conceptual rainfall-runoff models in low-yielding ephemeral catchments. Water Resour. Res. 33(1), 153-166.