Next Article in Journal
Comparing Transient and Steady-State Analysis of Single-Ring Infiltrometer Data for an Abandoned Field Affected by Fire in Eastern Spain
Next Article in Special Issue
Evaluation of Multi-Satellite Precipitation Products for Streamflow Simulations: A Case Study for the Han River Basin in the Korean Peninsula, East Asia
Previous Article in Journal
Bioturbation Effects of Chironomid Larvae on Nitrogen Release and Ammonia-Oxidizing Bacteria Abundance in Sediments
Previous Article in Special Issue
Significance of the China Meteorological Assimilation Driving Datasets for the SWAT Model (CMADS) of East Asia
Article

Evaluation and Hydrological Simulation of CMADS and CFSR Reanalysis Datasets in the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau

1
State Key Laboratory of Cryospheric Science, Northwest Institute of Eco-Environment and Resources, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Lanzhou 730000, China
2
University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China
3
Institute of International Rivers and Eco-Security, Yunnan University, Kunming 650500, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Water 2018, 10(4), 513; https://doi.org/10.3390/w10040513
Received: 11 March 2018 / Revised: 9 April 2018 / Accepted: 10 April 2018 / Published: 20 April 2018
Multisource reanalysis datasets provide an effective way to help us understand hydrological processes in inland alpine regions with sparsely distributed weather stations. The accuracy and quality of two widely used datasets, the China Meteorological Assimilation Driving Datasets to force the SWAT model (CMADS), and the Climate Forecast System Reanalysis (CFSR) in the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau (TP), were evaluated in this paper. The accuracy of daily precipitation, max/min temperature, relative humidity and wind speed from CMADS and CFSR are firstly evaluated by comparing them with results obtained from 131 meteorological stations in the TP. Statistical results show that most elements of CMADS are superior to those of CFSR. The average correlation coefficient (R) between the maximum temperature and the minimum temperature of CMADS and CFSR ranged from 0.93 to 0.97. The root mean square error (RMSE) for CMADS and CFSR ranged from 3.16 to 3.18 °C, and ranged from 5.19 °C to 8.14 °C respectively. The average R of precipitation, relative humidity, and wind speed for CMADS are 0.46; 0.88 and 0.64 respectively, while they are 0.43, 0.52, and 0.37 for CFSR. Gridded observation data is obtained using the professional interpolation software, ANUSPLIN. Meteorological elements from three gridded data have a similar overall distribution but have a different partial distribution. The Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) is used to simulate hydrological processes in the Yellow River Source Basin of the TP. The Nash Sutcliffe coefficients (NSE) of CMADS+SWAT in calibration and validation period are 0.78 and 0.68 for the monthly scale respectively, which are better than those of CFSR+SWAT and OBS+SWAT in the Yellow River Source Basin. The relationship between snowmelt and other variables is measured by GeoDetector. Air temperature, soil moisture, and soil temperature at 1.038 m has a greater influence on snowmelt than others. View Full-Text
Keywords: CMADS; Qinghai-Tibet Plateau (TP); SWAT; CFSR CMADS; Qinghai-Tibet Plateau (TP); SWAT; CFSR
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Liu, J.; Shanguan, D.; Liu, S.; Ding, Y. Evaluation and Hydrological Simulation of CMADS and CFSR Reanalysis Datasets in the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau. Water 2018, 10, 513. https://doi.org/10.3390/w10040513

AMA Style

Liu J, Shanguan D, Liu S, Ding Y. Evaluation and Hydrological Simulation of CMADS and CFSR Reanalysis Datasets in the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau. Water. 2018; 10(4):513. https://doi.org/10.3390/w10040513

Chicago/Turabian Style

Liu, Jun, Donghui Shanguan, Shiyin Liu, and Yongjian Ding. 2018. "Evaluation and Hydrological Simulation of CMADS and CFSR Reanalysis Datasets in the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau" Water 10, no. 4: 513. https://doi.org/10.3390/w10040513

Find Other Styles
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Back to TopTop