Premium
Simulating hydrological response for the R‐5 catchment: comparison of two models and the impact of the roads
Author(s) -
Loague Keith,
VanderKwaak Joel E.
Publication year - 2002
Publication title -
hydrological processes
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.222
H-Index - 161
eISSN - 1099-1085
pISSN - 0885-6087
DOI - 10.1002/hyp.316
Subject(s) - surface runoff , calibration , streamflow , environmental science , hydrology (agriculture) , drainage basin , range (aeronautics) , catchment hydrology , event (particle physics) , rangeland , mathematics , geology , statistics , geography , cartography , physics , geotechnical engineering , agroforestry , ecology , materials science , quantum mechanics , composite material , biology
In this paper the performance of two hydrological‐response models is evaluated and compared based upon simulations for a single rainfall–runoff event. The two models are QPBRRM, a relatively simple model of Horton overland flow, and I n HM, a comprehensive physics‐based model of each of the known streamflow generation mechanisms. The rainfall–runoff event focused upon in this study is from the small rangeland catchment in Oklahoma known as R‐5. When calibrated, both QPBRRM and I n HM are shown to effectively simulate the R‐5 event. The calibration procedures used in this study for QPBRRM and I n HM were quite different. The calibration of QPBRRM was a curve fitting exercise, whereas the calibration of I n HM was based upon an internally valid estimate of the continuous head field. In this study QPBRRM did not perform well outside of the calibrated range. The impact of the roads cutting across the R‐5 catchment is simulated with I n HM and discussed for the first time in the study reported here. The relative merits of QPBRRM and I n HM are each discussed. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.