Additional data sources Additional data sources and model structure: and model structure: help or hindrance? help or hindrance? Olga Semenova Olga Semenova State Hydrological Institute, St. Petersburg, State Hydrological Institute, St. Petersburg, Russia Russia Pedro Restrepo Pedro Restrepo Office of Hydrologic development, NOAA, USA Office of Hydrologic development, NOAA, USA James McNamara James McNamara Boise State University, USA Boise State University, USA
25
Embed
Additional data sources and model structure: help or hindrance?
Additional data sources and model structure: help or hindrance?. Olga Semenova State Hydrological Institute, St. Petersburg, Russia Pedro Restrepo Office of Hydrologic development, NOAA, USA James McNamara Boise State University, USA. Objectives. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Additional data sources Additional data sources and model structure: and model structure: help or hindrance?help or hindrance?
Olga SemenovaOlga SemenovaState Hydrological Institute, St. Petersburg, RussiaState Hydrological Institute, St. Petersburg, Russia
Pedro RestrepoPedro RestrepoOffice of Hydrologic development, NOAA, USAOffice of Hydrologic development, NOAA, USA
James McNamaraJames McNamaraBoise State University, USABoise State University, USA
ObjectivesObjectives
• Test the Hydrograph model in semi-arid snow-dominated watershed
• Study the effect of additional observations on the quality of the streamflow simulation results
• Answer the question, if the model developed for completely different geographical settings can handle the additional data in a satisfactory way without change of its fixed structure?
Dry Creek watershed, Idaho, USADry Creek watershed, Idaho, USA
Dry CreekDry Creek
Catchment Area: 28 km2
Elevation Range: 1030-2130 m
Grasses, shrubs, and conifer forests vary with aspect and elevation
Low Elevation Grass
Mid Elevation Shrub
High Elevation Forest
Available dataAvailable data
0
50
100
150
200
prec
ipita
tion
(mm
)
october january april july
963 mm77% Snow
High Elevation
0
50
100
150
200
prec
ipita
tion
(mm
)
october january april july
335 mm32% Snow
Low Elevation
• Air Temperature• Relative Humidity• Wind Speed/Direction• Solar Radiation• Net Radiation• Soil Moisture• Soil Temperature• Precipitation• Snow Depth
Hydrometeorological Data
State Hydrological Institute, St. Petersburg, Russia
Hydrograph modelHydrograph modelR
• Single model structure for watersheds of any scale
• Adequacy to natural processes while looking for the simplest solutions
• Minimum of manual calibration
Forcing data: precipitation, temperature, relative humidityOutput results: runoff, soil and snow state variables, full water balance
Handling of Riparian VegetationHandling of Riparian Vegetation• Assume Riparian vegetation transpires at the
potential rate from May through August• Increases linearly from 0 on 1 May to the
potential rate on 31 May• Decreases linearly from the potential rate on Sept
1st to 0 on Sept 30.• Assume evapotranspiration losses from riparian
vegetation directly affect streamflow• Used climatological pan evaporation, with k=0.7.• Average seasonal water use• Approach followed compares favorably with
measured cottonwood water (966mm) and and open water evaporation (1156mm) use in the San Pedro River Basin (Arizona)1
1“Hydrologic Requirements of and Evapotranspiration by Riparian Vegetation along the San Pedro River, Arizona” Fact Sheet 2006-3027, USGS, May 2007
Model versus wrong observations…Model versus wrong observations…
lower gage 2mgage
01.200801.200701.200601.2005
m3/
s
2 . 8
2.6
2.4
2.2
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
#0
#0
#0
#0#0
#0#0
Lower gage
2mgage
Model versus wrong observations…Model versus wrong observations…
lower gage 2mgage
07.200605.200603.200601.2006
m3/
s
2 . 8
2.6
2.4
2.2
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
Model versus wrong observations…Model versus wrong observations…
lower gage 2mgage simulated
07.200605.200603.200601.2006
m3/
s
2 . 8
2.6
2.4
2.2
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
Model versus wrong observations…Model versus wrong observations…
lower gage 2mgage simulated
07.200605.200603.200601.2006
m3/
s
2 . 8
2.6
2.4
2.2
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
ConclusionsConclusions• The Hydrograph model produces reliable soil
moisture and temperature, snow water equivalent and streamflow simulations without changes to the model structure.
• We handled water usage from riparian vegetation by post-processing the data. The model can handle that situation with its algorithm for simulating shallow groundwater. This will be done later on.
• Use of models which require modest amount of parameter adjustment serves also as a quality control for observations
• Overall, simulation results were satisfactory, with minor amount of parameter calibration.