Premium
Comparative assessment of two distributed watershed models with application to a small watershed
Author(s) -
Kalin Latif,
Hantush Mohamed H.
Publication year - 2006
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.6063
Subject(s) - watershed , hydrograph , surface runoff , kinematic wave , hydrology (agriculture) , environmental science , erosion , time of concentration , hydrological modelling , sediment , distributed element model , calibration , geology , geomorphology , computer science , mathematics , geotechnical engineering , statistics , climatology , engineering , electrical engineering , biology , machine learning , ecology
Distributed watershed models are beneficial tools for the assessment of management practices on runoff and water‐induced erosion. This paper evaluates, by application to an experimental watershed, two promising distributed watershed‐scale sediment models in detail: the Kinematic Runoff and Erosion (KINEROS‐2) model and the Gridded Surface Subsurface Hydrologic Analysis (GSSHA) model. The physics behind each model are to some extent similar, though they have different watershed conceptualizations. KINEROS‐2 was calibrated using three rainfall events and validated over four separate rainfall events. Parameters estimated by this calibration process were adapted to GSSHA. With these parameters, GSSHA generated larger and retarded flow hydrographs. A 30% reduction in both plane and channel roughness in GSSHA along with the assumption of Green‐Ampt conductivity K G‐A = K s , where K s is the saturated conductivity, resulted in almost identical hydrographs. Sediment parameters not common in both models were calibrated independently of KINEROS‐2. A comparative discussion of simulation results is presented. Even though GSSHA's flow component slightly overperformed KINEROS‐2, the latter outperformed GSSHA in simulations for sediment transport. In spite of the fact that KINEROS‐2 is not geared toward continuous‐time simulations, simulations performed with both models over a 1 month period generated comparable results. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.