Next Article in Journal
The Effect of Climate Change and Urbanization on the Demand for Low Impact Development for Three Canadian Cities
Previous Article in Journal
Improvement of Non-Hydrostatic Hydrodynamic Solution Using a Novel Free-Surface Boundary Condition
Article

Evaluation of a Distributed Streamflow Forecast Model at Multiple Watershed Scales

1
Department of Geological and Atmospheric Sciences, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USA
2
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Colorado School of Mines, Golden, CO 80401, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Water 2020, 12(5), 1279; https://doi.org/10.3390/w12051279
Received: 24 March 2020 / Revised: 27 April 2020 / Accepted: 27 April 2020 / Published: 30 April 2020
(This article belongs to the Section Hydrology)
Demand for reliable estimates of streamflow has increased as society becomes more susceptible to climatic extremes such as droughts and flooding, especially at small scales where local population centers and infrastructure can be affected by rapidly occurring events. In the current study, the Hydrology Laboratory-Research Distributed Hydrologic Model (HL-RDHM) (NOAA/NWS, Silver Spring, MD, USA) was used to explore the accuracy of a distributed hydrologic model to simulate discharge at watershed scales ranging from 20 to 2500 km2. The model was calibrated and validated using observed discharge data at the basin outlets, and discharge at uncalibrated subbasin locations was evaluated. Two precipitation products with nominal spatial resolutions of 12.5 km and 4 km were tested to characterize the role of input resolution on the discharge simulations. In general, model performance decreased as basin size decreased. When sub-basin area was less than 250 km2 or 20–40% of the total watershed area, model performance dropped below the defined acceptable levels. Simulations forced with the lower resolution precipitation product had better model evaluation statistics; for example, the Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE) scores ranged from 0.50 to 0.67 for the verification period for basin outlets, compared to scores that ranged from 0.33 to 0.52 for the higher spatial resolution forcing. View Full-Text
Keywords: distributed modeling; flood forecasting; basin scales; ungauged basins distributed modeling; flood forecasting; basin scales; ungauged basins
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Madsen, T.; Franz, K.; Hogue, T. Evaluation of a Distributed Streamflow Forecast Model at Multiple Watershed Scales. Water 2020, 12, 1279. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12051279

AMA Style

Madsen T, Franz K, Hogue T. Evaluation of a Distributed Streamflow Forecast Model at Multiple Watershed Scales. Water. 2020; 12(5):1279. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12051279

Chicago/Turabian Style

Madsen, Tyler, Kristie Franz, and Terri Hogue. 2020. "Evaluation of a Distributed Streamflow Forecast Model at Multiple Watershed Scales" Water 12, no. 5: 1279. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12051279

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