Figure 1.
Location map of the analyzed basins in the Northeast and South regions of Brazil. The Parnaíba River basin is in green, the São Francisco River basin is orange, the Iguaçu River basin is in red, and the Uruguay River basin is blue. The Boa Esperança, Três Marias, Salto Santiago, and Itá Power Plants are all marked in black. These power plants were analyzed for precipitation-to-flow conversion.
Figure 1.
Location map of the analyzed basins in the Northeast and South regions of Brazil. The Parnaíba River basin is in green, the São Francisco River basin is orange, the Iguaçu River basin is in red, and the Uruguay River basin is blue. The Boa Esperança, Três Marias, Salto Santiago, and Itá Power Plants are all marked in black. These power plants were analyzed for precipitation-to-flow conversion.
Figure 2.
Hydrograph representing the calibration of the SMAP model for the Iguaçu River basin, considering the storage reservoir of the Salto Santiago Power Plant. The purple columns represent the precipitation within the basin, while the blue, red, and green curves correspond to the observed flow, the calculated flow, and the base flow, respectively, obtained from 1994 to 2006. This interval represents 60% of the data from the 20-year interval established for the SMAP calibration.
Figure 2.
Hydrograph representing the calibration of the SMAP model for the Iguaçu River basin, considering the storage reservoir of the Salto Santiago Power Plant. The purple columns represent the precipitation within the basin, while the blue, red, and green curves correspond to the observed flow, the calculated flow, and the base flow, respectively, obtained from 1994 to 2006. This interval represents 60% of the data from the 20-year interval established for the SMAP calibration.
Figure 3.
Hydrograph representing the validation of the SMAP model for the Iguaçu River basin, considering the storage reservoir of the Salto Santiago Power Plant. The purple columns represent the precipitation within the basin, while the blue, red, and green curves correspond to the observed flow, the calculated flow, and the base flow, respectively, obtained from 2007 to 2014. This interval represents 40% of the data from the 20-year interval established for the SMAP validation.
Figure 3.
Hydrograph representing the validation of the SMAP model for the Iguaçu River basin, considering the storage reservoir of the Salto Santiago Power Plant. The purple columns represent the precipitation within the basin, while the blue, red, and green curves correspond to the observed flow, the calculated flow, and the base flow, respectively, obtained from 2007 to 2014. This interval represents 40% of the data from the 20-year interval established for the SMAP validation.
Figure 4.
Comparison of bias-correction coefficients obtained for each study basin. The blue, green, lilac, and red curves represent the coefficients calculated for the BCC CSM1-1, CCSM4, MIROC5, and NorESM1-M models, respectively. The y-axis scale was fixed to allow the visualization of the curves’ behavior at lower values.
Figure 4.
Comparison of bias-correction coefficients obtained for each study basin. The blue, green, lilac, and red curves represent the coefficients calculated for the BCC CSM1-1, CCSM4, MIROC5, and NorESM1-M models, respectively. The y-axis scale was fixed to allow the visualization of the curves’ behavior at lower values.
Figure 5.
Histograms of simulated monthly flows obtained for each study basin for the historical period (1931–2005). The observed flow is represented by the blue bars and the dotted black curve. The simulated flows are shown by the blue, green, lilac, and red curves, corresponding to the BCC CSM1-1, CCSM4, MIROC5, and NorESM1-M models, respectively.
Figure 5.
Histograms of simulated monthly flows obtained for each study basin for the historical period (1931–2005). The observed flow is represented by the blue bars and the dotted black curve. The simulated flows are shown by the blue, green, lilac, and red curves, corresponding to the BCC CSM1-1, CCSM4, MIROC5, and NorESM1-M models, respectively.
Figure 6.
Histograms of simulated monthly flows obtained for each study basin for the RCP4.5 scenario (2020–2100). The observed flow is represented by the blue bars and the dotted black curve. The simulated future flows are shown by the blue, green, lilac, and red curves, corresponding to the BCC CSM1-1, CCSM4, MIROC5, and NorESM1-M models, respectively.
Figure 6.
Histograms of simulated monthly flows obtained for each study basin for the RCP4.5 scenario (2020–2100). The observed flow is represented by the blue bars and the dotted black curve. The simulated future flows are shown by the blue, green, lilac, and red curves, corresponding to the BCC CSM1-1, CCSM4, MIROC5, and NorESM1-M models, respectively.
Figure 7.
Histograms of simulated monthly flows obtained for each study basin for the RCP8.5 scenario (2020–2100). The observed flow is represented by the blue bars and the dotted black curve. The simulated future flows are shown by the blue, green, lilac, and red curves, corresponding to the BCC CSM1-1, CCSM4, MIROC5, and NorESM1-M models, respectively.
Figure 7.
Histograms of simulated monthly flows obtained for each study basin for the RCP8.5 scenario (2020–2100). The observed flow is represented by the blue bars and the dotted black curve. The simulated future flows are shown by the blue, green, lilac, and red curves, corresponding to the BCC CSM1-1, CCSM4, MIROC5, and NorESM1-M models, respectively.
Figure 8.
Comparison of monthly standard deviations calculated from simulated flows for the historical period (1931–2005), considering each study basin. The black column represents the observed flow provided by ONS, while the blue, green, lilac, and red columns represent the standard deviations obtained from the BCC CSM1-1, CCSM4, MIROC5, and NorESM1-M models, respectively.
Figure 8.
Comparison of monthly standard deviations calculated from simulated flows for the historical period (1931–2005), considering each study basin. The black column represents the observed flow provided by ONS, while the blue, green, lilac, and red columns represent the standard deviations obtained from the BCC CSM1-1, CCSM4, MIROC5, and NorESM1-M models, respectively.
Figure 9.
Comparison of monthly standard deviations calculated from simulated flows for the RCP4.5 scenario (2020–2100), considering each study basin. The displayed values are representative of the percentage increases relative to the simulations for the historical period. The blue, green, lilac, and red columns refer to the BCC CSM1-1, CCSM4, MIROC5, and NorESM1-M models, respectively.
Figure 9.
Comparison of monthly standard deviations calculated from simulated flows for the RCP4.5 scenario (2020–2100), considering each study basin. The displayed values are representative of the percentage increases relative to the simulations for the historical period. The blue, green, lilac, and red columns refer to the BCC CSM1-1, CCSM4, MIROC5, and NorESM1-M models, respectively.
Figure 10.
Comparison of monthly standard deviations calculated from simulated flows for the RCP8.5 scenario (2020–2100), considering each study basin. The displayed values are representative of the percentage increases relative to the simulations for the historical period. The blue, green, lilac, and red columns refer to the BCC CSM1-1, CCSM4, MIROC5, and NorESM1-M models, respectively.
Figure 10.
Comparison of monthly standard deviations calculated from simulated flows for the RCP8.5 scenario (2020–2100), considering each study basin. The displayed values are representative of the percentage increases relative to the simulations for the historical period. The blue, green, lilac, and red columns refer to the BCC CSM1-1, CCSM4, MIROC5, and NorESM1-M models, respectively.
Figure 11.
Comparison of the trends and noises resulting from the seasonal decomposition of simulated flows for the RCP4.5 scenario (2020–2100), focusing on the Parnaíba River basin. The results for each model (BCC CSM1-1, CCSM4, MIROC5, and NorESM1-M) are presented, with trends depicted by the blue curves and residuals represented by the red dots.
Figure 11.
Comparison of the trends and noises resulting from the seasonal decomposition of simulated flows for the RCP4.5 scenario (2020–2100), focusing on the Parnaíba River basin. The results for each model (BCC CSM1-1, CCSM4, MIROC5, and NorESM1-M) are presented, with trends depicted by the blue curves and residuals represented by the red dots.
Figure 12.
Comparison of the trends and noises resulting from the seasonal decomposition of simulated flows for the RCP8.5 scenario (2020–2100), focusing on the Parnaíba River basin. The results for each model (BCC CSM1-1, CCSM4, MIROC5, and NorESM1-M) are presented, with trends depicted by the blue curves and residuals represented by the red dots.
Figure 12.
Comparison of the trends and noises resulting from the seasonal decomposition of simulated flows for the RCP8.5 scenario (2020–2100), focusing on the Parnaíba River basin. The results for each model (BCC CSM1-1, CCSM4, MIROC5, and NorESM1-M) are presented, with trends depicted by the blue curves and residuals represented by the red dots.
Figure 13.
Comparison of the trends and noises resulting from the seasonal decomposition of simulated flows for the RCP4.5 scenario (2020–2100), focusing on the São Francisco River basin. The results for each model (BCC CSM1-1, CCSM4, MIROC5, and NorESM1-M) are presented, with trends depicted by the blue curves and residuals represented by the red dots.
Figure 13.
Comparison of the trends and noises resulting from the seasonal decomposition of simulated flows for the RCP4.5 scenario (2020–2100), focusing on the São Francisco River basin. The results for each model (BCC CSM1-1, CCSM4, MIROC5, and NorESM1-M) are presented, with trends depicted by the blue curves and residuals represented by the red dots.
Figure 14.
Comparison of the trends and noises resulting from the seasonal decomposition of simulated flows for the RCP8.5 scenario (2020–2100), focusing on the São Francisco River basin. The results for each model (BCC CSM1-1, CCSM4, MIROC5, and NorESM1-M) are presented, with trends depicted by the blue curves and residuals represented by the red dots.
Figure 14.
Comparison of the trends and noises resulting from the seasonal decomposition of simulated flows for the RCP8.5 scenario (2020–2100), focusing on the São Francisco River basin. The results for each model (BCC CSM1-1, CCSM4, MIROC5, and NorESM1-M) are presented, with trends depicted by the blue curves and residuals represented by the red dots.
Figure 15.
Comparison of the trends and noises resulting from the seasonal decomposition of simulated flows for the RCP4.5 scenario (2020–2100), focusing on the Iguaçu River basin. The results for each model (BCC CSM1-1, CCSM4, MIROC5, and NorESM1-M) are presented, with trends depicted by the blue curves and residuals represented by the red dots.
Figure 15.
Comparison of the trends and noises resulting from the seasonal decomposition of simulated flows for the RCP4.5 scenario (2020–2100), focusing on the Iguaçu River basin. The results for each model (BCC CSM1-1, CCSM4, MIROC5, and NorESM1-M) are presented, with trends depicted by the blue curves and residuals represented by the red dots.
Figure 16.
Comparison of the trends and noises resulting from the seasonal decomposition of simulated flows for the RCP8.5 scenario (2020–2100), focusing on the Iguaçu River basin. The results for each model (BCC CSM1-1, CCSM4, MIROC5, and NorESM1-M) are presented, with trends depicted by the blue curves and residuals represented by the red dots.
Figure 16.
Comparison of the trends and noises resulting from the seasonal decomposition of simulated flows for the RCP8.5 scenario (2020–2100), focusing on the Iguaçu River basin. The results for each model (BCC CSM1-1, CCSM4, MIROC5, and NorESM1-M) are presented, with trends depicted by the blue curves and residuals represented by the red dots.
Figure 17.
Comparison of the trends and noises resulting from the seasonal decomposition of simulated flows for the RCP4.5 scenario (2020–2100), focusing on the Uruguay River basin. The results for each model (BCC CSM1-1, CCSM4, MIROC5, and NorESM1-M) are presented, with trends depicted by the blue curves and residuals represented by the red dots.
Figure 17.
Comparison of the trends and noises resulting from the seasonal decomposition of simulated flows for the RCP4.5 scenario (2020–2100), focusing on the Uruguay River basin. The results for each model (BCC CSM1-1, CCSM4, MIROC5, and NorESM1-M) are presented, with trends depicted by the blue curves and residuals represented by the red dots.
Figure 18.
Comparison of the trends and noises resulting from the seasonal decomposition of simulated flows for the RCP8.5 scenario (2020–2100), focusing on the Uruguay River basin. The results for each model (BCC CSM1-1, CCSM4, MIROC5, and NorESM1-M) are presented, with trends depicted by the blue curves and residuals represented by the red dots.
Figure 18.
Comparison of the trends and noises resulting from the seasonal decomposition of simulated flows for the RCP8.5 scenario (2020–2100), focusing on the Uruguay River basin. The results for each model (BCC CSM1-1, CCSM4, MIROC5, and NorESM1-M) are presented, with trends depicted by the blue curves and residuals represented by the red dots.
Table 1.
Efficiency coefficients obtained for basins in the Northeast region of Brazil.
Table 1.
Efficiency coefficients obtained for basins in the Northeast region of Brazil.
| Parnaíba | São Francisco |
---|
Coefficients | Calibration | Validation | Calibration | Validation |
---|
NASH | 0.73 | 0.79 | 0.91 | 0.89 |
MAPE | 0.16 | 0.18 | 0.14 | 0.21 |
1-MAPE | 0.84 | 0.82 | 0.86 | 0.79 |
Global Efficiency | 1.57 | 1.61 | 1.76 | 1.68 |
Table 2.
Efficiency coefficients obtained for basins in the South region of Brazil.
Table 2.
Efficiency coefficients obtained for basins in the South region of Brazil.
| Iguaçu | Uruguay |
---|
Coefficients | Calibration | Validation | Calibration | Validation |
---|
NASH | 0.87 | 0.83 | 0.88 | 0.87 |
MAPE | 0.17 | 0.21 | 0.18 | 0.21 |
1-MAPE | 0.83 | 0.79 | 0.82 | 0.79 |
Global Efficiency | 1.70 | 1.62 | 1.69 | 1.67 |
Table 3.
Comparison of Average Simulated Flows, Mean Absolute Errors (MAEs), and Mean Absolute Percentage Errors (MAPEs), before and after bias correction, for the Parnaíba River basin.
Table 3.
Comparison of Average Simulated Flows, Mean Absolute Errors (MAEs), and Mean Absolute Percentage Errors (MAPEs), before and after bias correction, for the Parnaíba River basin.
Average Flow (1931–2005) | BCC CSM1-1 | CCSM4 | MIROC5 | NorESM1-M |
---|
Before Correction | | | | |
Simulated (m3/s) | 3466.92 | 1680.68 | 1749.31 | 3141.73 |
MAE | 3001.05 | 1218.23 | 1284.58 | 2675.85 |
MAPE (%) | 654.04 | 334.60 | 365.74 | 696.03 |
After Correction | | | | |
Simulated (m3/s) | 480.41 | 469.03 | 519.93 | 427.10 |
MAE | 175.82 | 163.78 | 171.61 | 146.95 |
MAPE (%) | 37.53 | 34.57 | 37.75 | 29.43 |
Table 4.
Comparison of Average Simulated Flows, Mean Absolute Errors (MAEs), and Mean Absolute Percentage Errors (MAPEs), before and after bias correction, for the São Francisco River basin.
Table 4.
Comparison of Average Simulated Flows, Mean Absolute Errors (MAEs), and Mean Absolute Percentage Errors (MAPEs), before and after bias correction, for the São Francisco River basin.
Average Flow (1931–2005) | BCC CSM1-1 | CCSM4 | MIROC5 | NorESM1-M |
---|
Before Correction | | | | |
Simulated (m3/s) | 229.43 | 384.91 | 381.29 | 497.29 |
MAE | 537.57 | 440.81 | 455.05 | 392.19 |
MAPE (%) | 74.19 | 59.79 | 61.96 | 54.03 |
After Correction | | | | |
Simulated (m3/s) | 699.67 | 517.03 | 636.20 | 650.49 |
MAE | 524.67 | 403.76 | 481.70 | 385.28 |
MAPE (%) | 78.99 | 60.09 | 66.68 | 57.26 |
Table 5.
Comparison of Average Simulated Flows, Mean Absolute Errors (MAEs), and Mean Absolute Percentage Errors (MAPEs), before and after bias correction, for the Iguaçu basin.
Table 5.
Comparison of Average Simulated Flows, Mean Absolute Errors (MAEs), and Mean Absolute Percentage Errors (MAPEs), before and after bias correction, for the Iguaçu basin.
Average Flow (1931–2005) | BCC CSM1-1 | CCSM4 | MIROC5 | NorESM1-M |
---|
Before Correction | | | | |
Simulated (m3/s) | 32.03 | 162.20 | 87.66 | 173.61 |
MAE | 962.98 | 869.06 | 911.78 | 876.16 |
MAPE (%) | 95.29 | 82.94 | 87.60 | 85.11 |
After Correction | | | | |
Simulated (m3/s) | 1538.07 | 999.10 | 1257.78 | 1488.64 |
MAE | 1342.10 | 925.33 | 997.66 | 1215.06 |
MAPE (%) | 198.64 | 136.46 | 145.82 | 199.86 |
Table 6.
Comparison of Average Simulated Flows, Mean Absolute Errors (MAEs), and Mean Absolute Percentage Errors (MAPEs), before and after bias correction, for the Uruguay basin.
Table 6.
Comparison of Average Simulated Flows, Mean Absolute Errors (MAEs), and Mean Absolute Percentage Errors (MAPEs), before and after bias correction, for the Uruguay basin.
Average Flow (1931–2005) | BCC CSM1-1 | CCSM4 | MIROC5 | NorESM1-M |
---|
Before Correction | | | | |
Simulated (m3/s) | 32.81 | 115.35 | 46.93 | 94.64 |
MAE | 997.38 | 947.73 | 983.56 | 967.32 |
MAPE (%) | 94.99 | 91.41 | 93.04 | 91.41 |
After Correction | | | | |
Simulated (m3/s) | 1454.69 | 1047.62 | 1102.51 | 918.78 |
MAE | 1392.61 | 1049.98 | 990.60 | 1026.58 |
MAPE (%) | 237.58 | 163.36 | 155,80 | 158.59 |