Impact of missing precipitation values on hydrological model output: a case study from the Eddleston Water catchment, Scotland

• Autorzy: Ruman S. , Krpec P. , Rusnok P. , Black A. R. , Trizna M. , Ball T.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.1007/s11600-020-00409-0

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

A hydrological model was applied to select the best inflling method of missing precipitation (1) and to assess the impact of the length of deleted and flled precipitation data (2). The model was calibrated and validated using the hourly observed discharges from two gauges located in the outlet of the catchment (62.34 km2 ) and in the inner sub-catchment (2.05 km2 ). Precipitation from four gauges was spatially interpolated over the overall catchment, while the sub-catchment used the precipitation from one gauge. Four scenarios of diferent lengths of deletion within three high-intensity events were established in the data of this gauge. Three inflling methods were applied and compared: substitution, linear regression and inverse distance weighting (IDW). Substitution showed the best results, followed by linear regression and IDW in both scales. Differences between methods were signifcant only in 8.3% and 19.4% of all cases (sub-catchment and catchment, respectively). The impact of length was assessed using the substitution only and by comparing diferences in discharges and performance statistics caused by four scenarios. Higher diferences in discharges were found on the catchment scale compared to the inner sub-catchment and were insignifcant for all events and scenarios. The hypothesis that a longer length of deleted and flled data would lead to a greater error in discharges was wrong for 11.1% and 16.7% of all cases (sub-catchment and catchment, respectively). In several cases (33.4% sub-catchment, 27.1% catchment), the model produced better results using the time series with flled gaps compared to the confguration with observed data.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

missing values; high-intensity rainfall; inflling methods; hydrological model; Scotland

PL

brakujące wartości; opady deszczu o dużej intensywności; metody wypełniania; model hydrologiczny; Szkocja

• Wydawca: Instytut Geofizyki PAN ; Springer
• Czasopismo: Acta Geophysica
• Rocznik: 2020
• Tom: Vol. 68, no. 2
• Strony: 565--576
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 57 poz.

Twórcy

autor

Ruman S.

• Department of Physical Geography and Geoecology, Faculty of Sciences, University of Ostrava, Chittussiho 10, 710 00 Ostrava, Czech Republic

autor

Krpec P.

• Department of Physical Geography and Geoecology, Faculty of Sciences, University of Ostrava, Chittussiho 10, 710 00 Ostrava, Czech Republic

autor

Rusnok P.

• Institute for Research and Applications of Fuzzy Modeling, University of Ostrava, 30. Dubna 22, 701 03 Ostrava 1, Czech Republic

autor

Black A. R.

• Geography, School of Social Sciences, University of Dundee, Nethergate, Dundee DD1 4HN, Scotland, UK

autor

Trizna M.

• Department of Physical Geography and Geoecology, Faculty of Sciences, Comenius University in Bratislava, Mlynská dolina, Ilkovičova 6, 842 15 Bratislava 4, Slovakia

autor

Ball T.

• Department of Archaeology, Anthropology and Geography, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Winchester, Sparkford Road, Winchester SO22 4NR, UK

Bibliografia

• 1. Allen RG, Pereira LS, Raes D, Smith M (1998) Crop evapotranspiration—guidelines for computing crop water requirements. FAO Irrigation and drainage paper 56. Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome
• 2. Alvarenga LA, de Mello CR, Colombo A, Cuartas LA, Bowling LC (2016) Assessment of land cover change on the hydrology of a Brazilian headwater watershed using the Distributed Hydrology–Soil–Vegetation Model. Catena 143(2016):7–17
• 3. Andersen J, Refsgaard JC, Jensen KH (2001) Distributed hydrological modelling of the Senegal river basin—model construction and validation. J Hydrol 247(3–4):200–214
• 4. Archer NL, Bonell M, Coles N, MacDonald AM, Auton R (2013) Soil characteristics and landcover relationships on soil hydraulic conductivity at a hillslope scale: a view towards local flood management. J Hydrol 497:208–222
• 5. Arnaud P, Bouvier C, Cisneros L, Dominguez R (2002) Influence of rainfall spatial variability on flood prediction. J Hydrol 260(1–4):216–230
• 6. Bárdossy A, Das T (2008) Influence of rainfall observation network on model calibration and application. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci Discuss 3(6):3691–3726
• 7. Bárdossy A, Pegram G (2014) Infilling missing precipitation records—a comparison of a new copula-based method with other techniques. J Hydrol 519:1162–1170
• 8. Beven K (1993) Prophecy, reality and uncertainty in distributed hydrological modelling. Adv Water Resour 16:41–51
• 9. Beven K (2006) A manifesto for the equifinality thesis. J Hydrol 320(1):18–36
• 10. Beven K (2012) Rainfall–runoff modelling: the primer, 2nd edn. Wiley, Chichester, p 455
• 11. Blenkinsop S, Lewis E, Chan SC, Fowler HJ (2016) Quality-control of an hourly rainfall dataset and climatology of extremes for the UK. Int J Climatol 37:722–740
• 12. Boudevillain B, Delrieu G, Wijbrans A, Confoland A (2016) A high-resolution rainfall re-analysis based on radar–raingauge merging in the Cévennes-Vivarais region, France. J Hydrol 541:14–23
• 13. Boyle DP, Gupta HV, Sorooshian S, Koren V, Zhang Y, Smith M (2001) Toward improved streamflow forecasts: value of semidistributed modeling. Water Resour Res 37(11):2749–2759
• 14. Cecinati F, de Niet AC, Sawicka K, Rico-Ramirez MA (2017) Optimal temporal resolution of rainfall for urban applications and uncertainty propagation. Water (Switzerland). https://doi.org/10.3390/w9100762
• 15. Cole SJ, Moore RJ (2008) Hydrological modelling using raingauge and radar-based estimators of areal rainfall. J Hydrol 358(3–4):159–181
• 16. Dirks KN, Hay JE, Stow CD, Harris D (1998) High-resolution studies of rainfall on Norfolk Island. Part II: interpolation of rainfall data. J Hydrol 208:187–193
• 17. Eischeid JK, Pasteris PA, Diaz HF, Plantico MS, Lott NJ (2000) Creating a serially complete, national daily time series of temperature and precipitation for the western United States. J Appl Meteorol 39(9):1580–1591
• 18. Fatichi S, Vivoni ER, Ogden FL, Ivanov VY, Mirus B, Gochis D, Downer CHW, Camporese M, Davison JH, Ebel B, Jones N, Kim J, Mascaro G, Niswonger R, Restrepo P, Rigon R, Shen CH, Sulis M, Tarboton D (2016) An overview of current applications, challenges, and future trends in distributed process-based models in hydrology. J Hydrol 537:45–60
• 19. Ficchi A, Perrin CH, Andréassian V (2016) Impact of temporal resolution of inputs on hydrological model performance: An analysis based on 2400 flood events. J Hydrol 538:454–470
• 20. Foster SB, Allen DM (2015) Groundwater–surface water interactions in a mountain-to-coast watershed: effects of climate change and human stressors. Adv Meteorol 22:861805
• 21. Freeze RA, Harlan RL (1969) Blueprint for a physically-based, digitally-simulated hydrologic response model. J Hydrol 9:237–258
• 22. Heistermann M, Kneis D (2011) Benchmarking quantitative precipitation estimation by conceptual rainfall–runoff modeling. Water Resour Res 47(6):1–23
• 23. Hughes RA (1996) 1:63,360/1:50,000 geological map series. Sheet number: 24E. Sheet title: Peebles. 1: 50,000. I.G.S. Geological Survey of Scotland, Edinburgh
• 24. Huisman JA, Breuer L, Bormann H, Bronstert A, Croke BFW, Frede H-G, Graff T, Hubrechts L, Jakeman AJ, Kite G, Leavesley G, Lanini J, Lettenmaier DP, Lindstrom G, Seibert J, Sivapalan MG, Viney NR, Willems P (2009) Assessing the impact of land use change on hydrology by ensemble modelling (LUCHEM) III: scenario analysis. Adv Water Resour 32:159–170
• 25. JHI (James Hutton Institute) (2014) Soil map (National Soil Map). 1:250,000. Vector data
• 26. Kim JW, Pachepsky YA (2010) Reconstructing missing daily precipitation data using regression trees and artificial neural networks for SWAT streamflow simulation. J Hydrol 394(3–4):305–314
• 27. Krajewski WF, Ciach GJ, Habib E (2003) An analysis of small-scale rainfall variability in different climatic regimes. Hydrol Sci J 48(2):151–162
• 28. Krause P, Boyle DP, Base F (2005) Comparison of different efficiency criteria for hydrological model assessment. Adv Geosci 5:89–97
• 29. Kuczera G, Williams BJ (1992) Effect of rainfall errors on accuracy of design flood estimates. Water Resour 28(4):1145–1153
• 30. Lewis E, Quinn N, Blenkinsop S, Fowler HJ, Freer J, Tanguy M, Hitt O, Coxon G, Bates P, Woods R (2018) A rule based quality control method for hourly rainfall data and a 1 km resolution gridded hourly rainfall dataset for Great Britain: CEH-GEAR1hr. J Hydrol 564:930–943
• 31. Lo Presti R, Barca E, Passarella G (2010) A methodology for treating missing data applied to daily rainfall data in the Candelaro River Basin (Italy). Environ Monit Assess 160(1–4):1–22
• 32. MacDonald AM, Maurice L, Dobbs MR, Reeves HJ, Auton CA (2012) Relating in situ hydraulic conductivity, particle size and relative density of superficial deposits in a heterogeneous catchment. J Hydrol 434–435:130–141
• 33. Maidment DR (2002) Arc Hydro: GIS for water resources. ESRI, Sacramento, p 203
• 34. Moriasi DN, Arnold JG, Van Liew MW, Bingner RL, Harmel RD, Veith TL (2007) Model evaluation guidelines for systematic quantification of accuracy in watershed simulations. Trans ASABE 50(3):885–900
• 35. Morris DA, Johnson AI (1967) Summary of hydrologic and physical properties of rock and soil materials as analyzed by the Hydrologic Laboratory of the U.S. Geological Survey. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1839-D, p 42
• 36. Moulin L, Gaume E, Obled C (2008) Uncertainties on mean areal precipitation: assessment and impact on streamflow simulations. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci Discuss 5(4):2067–2110
• 37. O’Dochartaigh BE, MacDonald AM, Merritt JE, Auton CA, Archer N, Bonell M, Kuras O, Raines MG, Bonsor HC, Dobbs M (2012) Eddleston water floodplain project: data report. Nottingham, p 95
• 38. Pearce D, Rea BR, Bradwell T, McDougall D (2014) Glacial geomorphology of the Tweedsmuir Hills, Central Southern Uplands, Scotland. J Maps 10(3):457–465
• 39. Pauthier B, Bois B, Castel T, Thévenin D, Chateau Smith C, Richard Y (2016) Mesoscale and local scale evaluations of quantitative precipitation estimates by weather radar products during a heavy rainfall event. Adv Meteorol 2016:9
• 40. Ritter A, Muñoz-Carpena R (2013) Performance evaluation of hydrological models: statistical significance for reducing subjectivity in goodness-of-fit assessments. J Hydrol 480:33–45
• 41. Reusser DE, Blume T, Schaefli B, Zehe E (2009) Analysing the temporal dynamics of model performance for hydrological models. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 13:999–1018
• 42. Sahoo GB, Ray C, De Carlo EH (2006) Calibration and validation of a physically distributed hydrological model, MIKE SHE, to predict streamflow at high frequency in a flashy mountainous Hawaii stream. J Hydrol 327(1–2):94–109
• 43. Singh VP (1997) Effect of spatial and temporal variability in rainfall and watershed characteristics on stream flow hydrograph. Hydrol Process 11(12):1649–1669
• 44. Singh CR, Thompson JR, Kingston DG, French JR (2011) Modelling water-level options for ecosystem services and assessment of climate change: Loktak Lake, northeast India. Hydrol Sci J 56(8):1518–1542
• 45. Song Y, Han D, Rico-Ramirez MA (2017) High temporal resolution rainfall rate estimation from rain gauge measurements. J Hydroinf 19:930–941
• 46. Sun X, Mein RG, Keenan TD, Elliott JF (2000) Flood estimation using radar and raingauge data. J Hydrol 239(1–4):4–18
• 47. Teegavarapu RSG, Nayak A (2017) Evaluation of long-term trends in extreme precipitation: implications of in-filled historical data use for analysis. J Hydrol 550:616–634
• 48. Thompson JR (2012) Modelling the impacts of climate change on upland catchments in southwest Scotland using MIKE SHE and the UKCP09 probabilistic projections. Hydrol Res 43(4):507
• 49. Thompson JR, Green AJ, Kingston DG, Gosling SN (2013) Assessment of uncertainty in river flow projections for the Mekong River using multiple GCMs and hydrological models. J Hydrol 486:1–30
• 50. Thompson JR, Green AJ, Kingston DG (2014) Potential evapotranspiration-related uncertainty in climate change impacts on river flow: An assessment for the Mekong River basin. J Hydrol 510:259–279
• 51. Tweed Forum (2016) The Eddleston Water Project Report (online). www.tweedforum.org. Accessed 20 Oct 19
• 52. Vaze J, Jordan P, Beecham R, Frost A, Summerell G (2012) Towards best practice model application. eWater Cooperative Research Centre, Australia, Bruce, p 46.
• 53. Vázquez RF, Hample H (2014) Prediction limits of a catchment hydrological model using different estimates of ET. J Hydrol 513:216–228
• 54. Vicente-Serrano SM, Beguería S, López-Moreno JI, García-Vera MA, Stepanek P (2010) A complete daily precipitation database for northeast Spain: reconstruction, quality control, and homogeneity. Int J Climatol 30:1146–1163
• 55. Villarini G, Mandapaka PV, Krajewski WF, Moore RJ (2008) Rainfall and sampling uncertainties: a rain gauge perspective. J Geophys Res 113:D11102
• 56. Walker WE, Harremoes P, Rotmans J, Van der Sluijs JP, Van Asselt MBA, Janssen P, Krayer von Krauss MP (2003) Defining uncertainty a conceptual basis for uncertainty management in model-based decision support. Integr Assess 4(1):5–17
• 57. Weisberg S (2005) Applied linear regression, 3rd edn. Wiley, Minneapolis, p 336

Uwagi

Opracowanie rekordu ze środków MNiSW, umowa Nr 461252 w ramach programu "Społeczna odpowiedzialność nauki" - moduł: Popularyzacja nauki i promocja sportu (2021)