z-logo
open-access-imgOpen Access
Influence of multisite calibration on streamflow estimation based on the hydrological model with CMADS inputs
Author(s) -
Yongyu Song,
Jing Zhang,
Yuequn Lai
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
journal of water and climate change
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.421
H-Index - 22
eISSN - 2408-9354
pISSN - 2040-2244
DOI - 10.2166/wcc.2021.115
Subject(s) - streamflow , environmental science , calibration , swat model , soil and water assessment tool , drainage basin , data assimilation , structural basin , climatology , coupled model intercomparison project , hydrology (agriculture) , hydrological modelling , sensitivity (control systems) , meteorology , climate change , climate model , statistics , geology , mathematics , geography , cartography , electronic engineering , paleontology , oceanography , geotechnical engineering , engineering
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.

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.
Having issues? You can contact us here
Accelerating Research

Address

John Eccles House
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom