SAC-SMA a priori parameter differences and their impact on distributed hydrologic model simulations

Journal of Hydrology

Volumn 420-421, Issue , 2012, Pages 216-227

  Zhang, Ziya ^a   Koren, Victor ^a   Reed, Seann ^a   Smith, Michael ^a   Zhang, Yu ^a   Moreda, Fekadu ^b   Cosgrove, Brian ^a  

^a NOAA EARTH SYSTEM RESEARCH LABORATORY   (United States)

^b RTI INTERNATIONAL   (United States)

Author keywords

A priori parameters; Distributed modeling; SAC SMA; SSURGO; STATSGO

Indexed keywords

A PRIORI PARAMETERS; DISTRIBUTED MODELING; SAC-SMA; SSURGO; STATSGO;

CALIBRATION; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DATABASE SYSTEMS; FLOOD CONTROL; LANDFORMS; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; SOIL MOISTURE; SOIL SURVEYS; TIME SERIES; WATER RESOURCES; WEATHER INFORMATION SERVICES;

GEOLOGIC MODELS;

ACCURACY ASSESSMENT; CALIBRATION; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DATA SET; DATABASE; FLASH FLOOD; FORECASTING METHOD; HILLSLOPE; HYDROLOGICAL MODELING; LAND COVER; LAND USE; NUMERICAL MODEL; PARAMETERIZATION; SOIL MOISTURE; TIME SERIES; UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS; WATER MANAGEMENT; WATER RESOURCE;

EID: 84856215654     PISSN: 00221694     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2011.12.004     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Abbott M., Bathurst J., Cunge J., O'Connell P., Rasmussen J. An introduction to the European Hydrological System-Systeme Hydrologique European (SHE), 1. History and philosophy of a physically-based, distributed modeling system. J. Hydrol. 1986, 87:45-59.
2. Anderson R., Koren V., Reed S. Using SSURGO data to improve Sacramento model a priori parameter estimates. J. Hydrol. 2006, 320:103-116.
3. Bell V.A., Moore R.J. A grid-based distributed flood forecasting model for use with weather radar data: Part 2. Case studies. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 1998, 2(3):283-298.
4. Beven K. A manifesto for the equifinality thesis. J. Hydrol. 2006, 320(1-2):18-36.
5. Brock F.V., Crawford K.C., Elliott R.L., Cuperus G.W., Stadler S.J., Johnson H., Eillts M.D. The Oklahoma Mesonet: a technical overview. J. Atmos. Oceanic Technol. 1995, 12:5-19.
6. Burnash, R.J.C., Ferral, R.L., McGuire, R.A., 1973. A Generalized Streamflow Simulation System-Conceptual Modeling for Digital Computers. Technical Report, United States Department of Commerce, National Weather Service and State of California, Department of Water Resources, Sacramento, 204pp.
7. Carpenter T.M., Gerorgakakos K.P. Impacts of parametric and radar rainfall uncertainty on the ensemble simulations of a distributed hydrologic model. J. Hydrol. 2004, 298:202-221.
8. DMIP web page. About the Stage III Data. http://www.nws.noaa.gov/oh/hrl/dmip/stageiii_info.htm.
9. Fulton R., Breidenbach J., Seo D.-J., Miller D., O'Bannon T. The WSR-88D rainfall algorithm. Weather Forecasting 1998, 13:377-395.
10. Gutman G., Tarpley D., Ignatov A., Olson S. The enhanced NOAA global land dataset from the advanced very high resolution radiometer. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 1995, 76:1141-1156.
11. Koren, V.I., 2008. Parameterization of SAC-SMA Model Specifically for Dry Basins. Part I: Derivation of Climate Adjustment Relationships. OHD Internal Report, 24pp. http://amazon.nws.noaa.gov/articles/HRL_Pubs_PDF_May12_2009/New_Scans_Links_September2009/Report_Part.I.doc.
12. Koren, V.I., Smith, M., Wang, D., Zhang, Z., 2000. Use of soil property data in the derivation of conceptual rainfall-runoff model parameters. In: Proceedings of the 15th Conference on Hydrology. AMS, Long Beach, CA, pp. 103-106.
13. Koren V.I., Reed S.M., Smith M., Zhang Z., Seo D.J. Hydrology laboratory research modeling system (HL-RMS) of the US National Weather Service. J. Hydrol. 2004, 291:297-318.
14. Koren, V., Moreda, F., Reed, S., Smith, M., Zhang, Z., 2006. Evaluation of a grid-based distributed hydrological model over a large area. In: Predictions in Ungauged Basins: Promise and Progress. Proceedings of Symposium S7 Held During the Seventh IAHS Scientific Assembly at Foz do Iguacu, Brazil, April 2005, vol. 303. IAHS Publication, pp. 47-56.
15. Koren V., Moreda F., Smith M. Use of soil moisture observations to improve parameter consistency in watershed calibration. Phys. Chem. Earth 2008, 33(17-18):1068-1080.
16. Kuzmin, V., Seo, D.-J., Koren, V., 2009. Fast and efficient optimization of hydrologic model parameters using a priori estimates and stepwise line search. J. Hydrol., 353, 1-2, 1-18.
17. Leavesley, G.H., Litchy, R.W., Troutman, M.M., Saindon, L.G., 1983. Precipitation-Runoff Modeling System - User's Manual: US Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 83-4238, 207pp.
18. Levick, L.R, Semmens, D.J., Guertin, D.P., Burns, I.S., Scott, S.N., Unkrich, C.L., Goodrich, D.C., 2004. Adding global soils data to the Automated Geospatial Watershed Assessment Tool (AGWA). In: Proc. of 2nd International Symposium on Transboundary Waters Management, Tucson, AZ (November 16-19).
19. McCuen R.H., Snyder W.M. A proposed index for comparing hydrographs. Water Resour. Res. 1975, 11(6):1021-1024.
20. Mednick, A.C., Sullivan, J., Watermolen, D.J., 2008. Comparing the Use of STATSGO and SSURGO Soils Data in Water Quality Modeling: A Literature Review. Bureau of Science Services, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Issue 60. http://www.dnr.wi.gov/org/es/science/publications/PUB_SS_760_2008.pdf.
21. Moriasi D.N., Starks P.J. Effects of the resolution of soil dataset and precipitation dataset on SWAT2005 streamflow calibration parameters and simulation accuracy. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2010, 65(2):63-78.
22. NOAA, National Weather Service, Office of Hydrologic Development, 2007. Frozen Ground SAC Model Enhancement Algorithm Description Document: Sacramento Model Enhancement to Handle Implications of Frozen Ground on Watershed Runoff. Version 3.4 (7/18/2007).
23. Peschel J.M., Haan P.K., Lacy R.E. Influences of soil dataset resolution on hydrologic modeling. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 2006, 42(5):1371-1389.
24. Reed, S.M., 1998. Use of Digital Soil Maps in a Rainfall-Runoff Model. Doctoral Dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas.
25. Reed S.M., Koren V., Smith M., Zhang Z., Moreda F., Seo D.-J., Participants D.M.I.P. Overall distributed model intercomparison project results. J. Hydrol. 2004, 298:27-60.
26. Romanowicz A.A., Vanclooster M., Rounsevell M., La Junesse I. Sensitivity of the SWAT model to the soil and land use data parametrisation: a case study in the Thyle catchment, Belgium. Ecol. Modell. 2005, 187(1):27-39. (Special Issue on Advances in Sustainable River Basin Management (10 September 2005)).
27. Smith M., Seo D.J., Koren V.I., Reed S.M., Zhang Z., Duan Q., Moreda F., Cong S. The distributed model intercomparison project (DMIP): motivation and experiment design. J. Hydrol. 2004, 298:4-26.
28. Soil Survey Staff, 2011a. Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. US General Soil Map (STATSGO2). (accessed 16.12.11). http://soils.usda.gov/survey/geography/statsgo/.
29. Soil Survey Staff, 2011b. Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database for Survey Area, State. (accessed 16.12.11). http://soils.usda.gov/survey/geography/ssurgo/.
30. Wigmosta M.S., Vail L.W., Lettenmaier D.P. A distributed hydrology-vegetation model for complex terrain. Water Resour. Res. 1994, 30(6):1665-1679.
31. Williamson, T., Odom, K.R., 2007. Implications of SSURGO vs. STATSGO data for modeling daily streamflow in Kentucky. In: ASA-CSSA-SSSA 2007 International Annual Meetings, November 4-8, New Orleans, Louisiana.
32. Zhang Y., Zhang Z., Reed S., Koren V. An enhanced and automated approach for deriving a priori SAC-SMA parameters from the soil survey geographic database. Comput. Geosci. 2011, 30(2):219-231.