Next Article in Journal
A Comparative Analysis of Root Growth Modules in HYDRUS for SWC of Rice under Deficit Drip Irrigation
Next Article in Special Issue
Temperature Changes and Their Impact on Drought Conditions in Winter and Spring in the Vistula Basin
Previous Article in Journal
The Origin of Quartz Cement in the Upper Triassic Second Member of the Xujiahe Formation Sandstones, Western Sichuan Basin, China
Previous Article in Special Issue
Meteorological Drought Events and Their Evolution from 1960 to 2015 Using the Daily SWAP Index in Chongqing, China
Article

The Response of the HydroGeoSphere Model to Alternative Spatial Precipitation Simulation Methods

1
State Key Laboratory of Hydrology-Water Resources and Hydraulic Engineering, College of Hydrology and Water Resources, Hohai University, Nanjing 210098, China
2
The Huaihe River Commission of the Ministry of Water Resource, Bengbu 233001, China
3
Department of Agronomy, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Academic Editors: Renata J. Romanowicz and Wen Wang
Water 2021, 13(14), 1891; https://doi.org/10.3390/w13141891
Received: 28 May 2021 / Revised: 4 July 2021 / Accepted: 5 July 2021 / Published: 8 July 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Human and Climate Impacts on Drought Dynamics and Vulnerability)
This paper presents the simulation results obtained from a physically based surface-subsurface hydrological model in a 5730 km2 watershed and the runoff response of the physically based hydrological models for three methods used to generate the spatial precipitation distribution: Thiessen polygons (TP), Co-Kriging (CK) interpolation and simulated annealing (SA). The HydroGeoSphere model is employed to simulate the rainfall-runoff process in two watersheds. For a large precipitation event, the simulated patterns using SA appear to be more realistic than those using the TP and CK method. In a large-scale watershed, the results demonstrate that when HydroGeoSphere is forced by TP precipitation data, it fails to reproduce the timing, intensity, or peak streamflow values. On the other hand, when HydroGeoSphere is forced by CK and SA data, the results are consistent with the measured streamflows. In a medium-scale watershed, the HydroGeoSphere results show a similar response compared to the measured streamflow values when driven by all three methods used to estimate the precipitation, although the SA case is slightly better than the other cases. The analytical results could provide a valuable counterpart to existing climate-based drought indices by comparing multiple interpolation methods in simulating land surface runoff. View Full-Text
Keywords: HydroGeoSphere; Thiessen polygon; Co-Kriging; simulated annealing; rainfall-runoff process HydroGeoSphere; Thiessen polygon; Co-Kriging; simulated annealing; rainfall-runoff process
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Lü, H.; Wang, Q.; Horton, R.; Zhu, Y. The Response of the HydroGeoSphere Model to Alternative Spatial Precipitation Simulation Methods. Water 2021, 13, 1891. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13141891

AMA Style

Lü H, Wang Q, Horton R, Zhu Y. The Response of the HydroGeoSphere Model to Alternative Spatial Precipitation Simulation Methods. Water. 2021; 13(14):1891. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13141891

Chicago/Turabian Style

Lü, Haishen, Qimeng Wang, Robert Horton, and Yonghua Zhu. 2021. "The Response of the HydroGeoSphere Model to Alternative Spatial Precipitation Simulation Methods" Water 13, no. 14: 1891. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13141891

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