Next Article in Journal
Flood Control Versus Water Conservation in Reservoirs: A New Policy to Allocate Available Storage
Previous Article in Journal
Efficiency and Survivability of a Floating Oscillating Water Column Wave Energy Converter Moored to the Seabed: An Overview of the EsflOWC MaRINET2 Database

Investigate the Applicability of CMADS and CFSR Reanalysis in Northeast China

College of Architecture and Civil Engineering, Beijing University of Technology (BJUT), Beijing 100124, China
State Key Laboratory of Simulation and Regulation of Water Cycle in River Basin&China Institute of Water Resources and Hydropower Research (IWHR), Beijing 100038, China
College of Resources and Environmental Science, China Agricultural University (CAU), Beijing 100094, China
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Water 2020, 12(4), 996;
Received: 27 December 2019 / Revised: 27 March 2020 / Accepted: 30 March 2020 / Published: 1 April 2020
(This article belongs to the Section Water Resources Management, Policy and Governance)
Reanalysis datasets can provide alternative and complementary meteorological data sources for hydrological studies or other scientific studies in regions with few gauge stations. This study evaluated the accuracy of two reanalysis datasets, the China Meteorological Assimilation Driving Datasets for the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) model (CMADS) and Climate Forecast System Reanalysis (CFSR), against gauge observations (OBS) by using interpolation software and statistical indicators in Northeast China (NEC), as well as their annual average spatial and monthly average distributions. The reliability and applicability of the two reanalysis datasets were assessed as inputs in a hydrological model (SWAT) for runoff simulation in the Hunhe River Basin. Statistical results reveal that CMADS performed better than CFSR for precipitation and temperature in NEC with the indicators closer to optimal values (the ratio of standard deviations of precipitation and maximum/minimum temperature from CMADS were 0.92, 1.01, and 0.995, respectively, while that from CFSR were 0.79, 1.07, and 0.897, respectively). Hydrological modelling results showed that CMADS + SWAT and OBS + SWAT performed far better than CFSR + SWAT on runoff simulations. The Nash‒Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE) of CMADS + SWAT and OBS + SWAT ranged from 0.54 to 0.95, while that of CFSR + SWAT ranged from −0.07 to 0.85, exhibiting poor performance. The CMADS reanalysis dataset is more accurate than CFSR in NEC and is a suitable input for hydrological simulations. View Full-Text
Keywords: CMADS; CFSR; reanalysis data; Northeast China; SWAT CMADS; CFSR; reanalysis data; Northeast China; SWAT
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Zhang, L.; Meng, X.; Wang, H.; Yang, M.; Cai, S. Investigate the Applicability of CMADS and CFSR Reanalysis in Northeast China. Water 2020, 12, 996.

AMA Style

Zhang L, Meng X, Wang H, Yang M, Cai S. Investigate the Applicability of CMADS and CFSR Reanalysis in Northeast China. Water. 2020; 12(4):996.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Zhang, Limin, Xianyong Meng, Hao Wang, Mingxiang Yang, and Siyu Cai. 2020. "Investigate the Applicability of CMADS and CFSR Reanalysis in Northeast China" Water 12, no. 4: 996.

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

Back to TopTop