Next Article in Journal
The Upwelling Groundwater Flow in the Karst Area of Grassano-Telese Springs (Southern Italy)
Next Article in Special Issue
Influence of Power Operations of Cascade Hydropower Stations under Climate Change and Human Activities and Revised Optimal Operation Strategies: A Case Study in the Upper Han River, China
Previous Article in Journal
PFASs in Finnish Rivers and Fish and the Loading of PFASs to the Baltic Sea
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Use of Large-Scale Climate Indices in Monthly Reservoir Inflow Forecasting and Its Application on Time Series and Artificial Intelligence Models
Article Menu
Issue 5 (May) cover image

Export Article

Open AccessArticle

Comparative Study of Two State-of-the-Art Semi-Distributed Hydrological Models

1
IIT Khragpur, Kharagpur, West Bengal 721302, India
2
Key Lab of Water Cycle and Related Land Surface Processes, Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China
3
AgFE Department, IIT Kharagpur, Kharagpur, West Bengal 721302, India
4
Odisha University of Agriculture & Technology, Bhubaneswar-751003, Odisha, India
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Water 2019, 11(5), 871; https://doi.org/10.3390/w11050871
Received: 17 April 2019 / Accepted: 21 April 2019 / Published: 26 April 2019
  |  
PDF [3756 KB, uploaded 26 April 2019]
  |  

Abstract

Performance of a newly developed semi-distributed (grid-based) hydrological model (satellite-based hydrological model (SHM)) has been compared with another semi-distributed soil and water assessment tool (SWAT)—a widely used hydrological response unit (HRU)-based hydrological model at a large scale (12,900 km2) river basin for monthly streamflow simulation. The grid-based model has a grid cell size of 25 km2, and the HRU-based model was set with an average HRU area of 25.2 km2 to keep a balance between the discretization of the two models. Both the model setups are calibrated against the observed streamflow over the period 1977 to 1990 (with 1976 as the warm-up period) and validated over the period 1991 to 2004 by comparing simulated and observed hydrographs as well as using coefficient of determination (R2), Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE), and percent bias (PBIAS) as statistical indices. Result of SHM simulation (NSE: 0.92 for calibration period; NSE: 0.92 for validation period) appears to be superior in comparison to SWAT simulation (NSE: 0.72 for calibration period; NSE: 0.50 for validation period) for both calibration and validation periods. The models’ performances are also analyzed for annual peak flow, monthly flow variability, and for different flow percentiles. SHM has performed better in simulating annual peak flows and has reproduced the annual variability of observed streamflow for every month of the year. In addition, SHM estimates normal, moderately high, and high flows better than SWAT. Furthermore, total uncertainties of models’ simulation have been analyzed using quantile regression technique and eventually quantified with scatter plots between P (measured data bracketed by the 95 percent predictive uncertainty (PPU) band) and R (the relative length of the 95PPU band with respect to the model simulated values)-values, for calibration and validation periods, for both the model simulations. The analysis confirms the superiority of SHM over its counterpart. Differences in data interpolation techniques and physical processes of the models are identified as the probable reasons behind the differences among the models’ outputs. View Full-Text
Keywords: grid-based; HRU-based; SHM; SWAT; large scale basin grid-based; HRU-based; SHM; SWAT; large scale basin
Figures

Figure 1

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited (CC BY 4.0).
SciFeed

Share & Cite This Article

MDPI and ACS Style

Paul, P.K.; Zhang, Y.; Mishra, A.; Panigrahy, N.; Singh, R. Comparative Study of Two State-of-the-Art Semi-Distributed Hydrological Models. Water 2019, 11, 871.

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.

Related Articles

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics

1

Comments

[Return to top]
Water EISSN 2073-4441 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert
Back to Top