Next Article in Journal
Assessment of Water Quality and Thermal Stress for an Artificial Fish Shelter in an Urban Small Pond during Early Summer
Next Article in Special Issue
Identification of Water Body Extent Based on Remote Sensing Data Collected with Unmanned Aerial Vehicle
Previous Article in Journal
The Water Governance Reform Framework: Overview and Applications to Australia, Mexico, Tanzania, U.S.A and Vietnam
Previous Article in Special Issue
Variations of Surface and Subsurface Water Storage in the Lower Mekong Basin (Vietnam and Cambodia) from Multisatellite Observations
Open AccessArticle

Evaluation of Hydrological Application of CMADS in Jinhua River Basin, China

College of Hydrology and Water Resources, Hohai University, Nanjing 210098, China
China Institute of Water Resources and Hydropower Research, Beijing 100038, China
Poly Developments and Holdings, Guangzhou 510308, China
Department of Hydraulic Engineering, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Water 2019, 11(1), 138;
Received: 16 October 2018 / Revised: 26 December 2018 / Accepted: 8 January 2019 / Published: 14 January 2019
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Applications of Remote Sensing and GIS in Hydrology)
Evaluating the hydrological application of reanalysis datasets is of practical importance for the design of water resources management and flood controlling facilities in regions with sparse meteorological data. This paper compared a new reanalysis dataset named CMADS with gauge observations and investigated the performance of the hydrological application of CMADS on daily streamflow, evapotranspiration, and soil moisture content simulations. The results show that: CMADS can represent meteorological elements including precipitation, temperature, relative humidity, and wind speed reasonably for both daily and monthly temporal scales while underestimates precipitation compared with gauge observations slightly (<15%). The hydrological model using CMADS dataset as meteorological inputs can capture the daily streamflow chracteristics well overall (with a NS value of 0.56 during calibration period and 0.61 during validation period) but underestimates streamflow obviously (with a BIAS of 42.42 % during calibration period and a BIAS of 33.29 % during validation period). The underestimation of streamflow simulated with CMADS dataset is more seriously in dry seasons ( 48.40 %) than that in wet seasons ( 39.41 %) for calibration period. The model driven by CMADS estimates evapotranspiration and soil moisture content well compared with the model driven by gauge observations. View Full-Text
Keywords: CMADS; hydrological application; DHSVM; streamflow; evapotranspiration; soil moisture content CMADS; hydrological application; DHSVM; streamflow; evapotranspiration; soil moisture content
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Zhou, Z.; Gao, X.; Yang, Z.; Feng, J.; Meng, C.; Xu, Z. Evaluation of Hydrological Application of CMADS in Jinhua River Basin, China. Water 2019, 11, 138.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats
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

Back to TopTop