Journal of Geographical Sciences >
Evaluation of the applicability of climate forecast system reanalysis weather data for hydrologic simulation: A case study in the Bahe River Basin of the Qinling Mountains, China
Author: Hu Sheng (1988-), PhD Candidate, specialized in hydrology, water resources, and geological disasters. E-mail: husheng198800@126.com
Received date: 2016-09-23
Accepted date: 2016-10-21
Online published: 2017-05-10
Supported by
International Partnership Program of Chinese Academy of Sciences, No.131551KYSB20160002
National Natural Science Foundation of China, No.41401602
Natural Science Basic Research Plan in Shaanxi Province of China, No.2014JQ2-4021
Key Scientific and Technological Innovation Team Plan of Shaanxi Province, No.2014KCT-27
Graduate Student Innovation Project of Northwest University, No.YZZ15011
Copyright
In recent years, global reanalysis weather data has been widely used in hydrological modeling around the world, but the results of simulations vary greatly. To consider the applicability of Climate Forecast System Reanalysis (CFSR) data in the hydrologic simulation of watersheds, the Bahe River Basin was used as a case study. Two types of weather data (conventional weather data and CFSR weather data) were considered to establish a Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) model, which was used to simulate runoff from 2001 to 2012 in the basin at annual and monthly scales. The effect of both datasets on the simulation was assessed using regression analysis, Nash-Sutcliffe Efficiency (NSE), and Percent Bias (PBIAS). A CFSR weather data correction method was proposed. The main results were as follows. (1) The CFSR climate data was applicable for hydrologic simulation in the Bahe River Basin (R2 of the simulated results above 0.50, NSE above 0.33, and |PBIAS| below 14.8. Although the quality of the CFSR weather data is not perfect, it achieved a satisfactory hydrological simulation after rainfall data correction. (2) The simulated streamflow using the CFSR data was higher than the observed streamflow, which was likely because the estimation of daily rainfall data by CFSR weather data resulted in more rainy days and stronger rainfall intensity than was actually observed. Therefore, the data simulated a higher base flow and flood peak discharge in terms of the water balance, except for some individual years. (3) The relation between the CFSR rainfall data (x) and the observed rainfall data (y) could be represented by a power exponent equation: y=1.4789x0.8875 (R2=0.98,P<0.001). There was a slight variation between the fitted equations for each station. The equation provides a theoretical basis for the correction of CFSR rainfall data.
HU Sheng , QIU Haijun , YANG Dongdong , CAO Mingming , SONG Jinxi , WU Jiang , HUANG Chenlu , GAO Yu . Evaluation of the applicability of climate forecast system reanalysis weather data for hydrologic simulation: A case study in the Bahe River Basin of the Qinling Mountains, China[J]. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 2017 , 27(5) : 546 -564 . DOI: 10.1007/s11442-017-1392-6
Figure 1 Map showing the location of the Bahe River Basin and its land use types in 2014 |
Table 1 Conventional rainfall information (2001-2012) and Climate Forecast System Reanalysis (CFSR) weather data in the Bahe River Basin |
Stations | Id | Average annual rainfall (mm) | Elevation (m) | Controlling sub-basins |
---|---|---|---|---|
Bayuana | P01 | 773.9 | 1144 | Sub 13-14, 17 |
Mujiayanc | P02 | 896.3 | 794 | Sub 3-4, 7-8, 19, 21 |
Muhuguanb | P03 | 649.9 | 1200 | Sub 25-28 |
Lanqiaob | P04 | 676.7 | 1768 | Sub 22-23 |
Luolicunc,e | P05 | 830.4 | 544 | Sub 12, 15-16, 18, 20 |
Gepaizhena | P06 | 853.6 | 1145 | Sub 32-33 |
Yuchuana | P07 | 891.2 | 1117 | Sub 29-31 |
Longwangmiaoc | P08 | 806.2 | 1352 | Sub 34-35 |
Wangchuana | P09 | 904.2 | 985 | Sub 24 |
Pantaowana | P10 | 655.5 | 495 | Sub 2, 5-6, 9-11 |
Maduwangc,e | P11 | 637.2 | 431 | Sub 1 |
Xiquc | P12 | 582.8 | 402 | Sub 1 |
CFSR1d | p3391094 | 1223.5 | 1590 | Sub 27, 29-31, 33-35 |
CFSR2d | p3391097 | 1271.0 | 1142 | Sub 28, 32 |
CFSR3d | p3421091 | 437.0 | 470 | Sub 1, 5 |
CFSR4d | p3421094 | 645.2 | 680 | Sub 2, 6-12, 15-16, 18-20, 22-24 |
CFSR5d | p3421097 | 983.7 | 1385 | Sub 3-4, 13-14, 17, 25-26 |
Note: aindicates rain gauging stations operating only in the flood season (from April to October) of 2001; bindicates rain gauging stations operating in the flood season during 2001-2010; cindicates rain gauging stations operating year round; dindicates meteorological stations; eindicates hydro-gauging stations. |
Figure 2 Map showing the distribution of sub-basins and hydrometeorological stations |
Figure 3 Hydrographs showing monthly observed streamflow and streamflow simulated with conventional and Climate Forecast System Reanalysis (CFSR) weather data |
Figure 4 Hydrographs showing annual observed streamflow and streamflow simulated with conventional and Climate Forecast System Reanalysis (CFSR) weather data |
Figure 5 Regression analysis between monthly observed and simulated streamflows |
Figure 6 Regression analysis between annual observed and simulated streamflows |
Figure 7 Regression analysis between monthly observed and simulated streamflows |
Figure 8 Regression analysis between annual observed and simulated streamflows |
Table 2 Model performance evaluations for monthly and annual time scales in the Bahe River Basin using conventional and Climate Forecast System Reanalysis (CFSR) weather simulations |
Time scales | Hydro-gauging stations | Conventional | CFSR | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
NSE | PBIAS | NSE | PBIAS | ||
Monthly | Luolicun | 0.708 | 31.841 | 0.428 | -4.260 |
Maduwang | 0.718 | 28.640 | 0.372 | -14.401 | |
Annual | Luolicun | 0.151 | 31.840 | 0.339 | -4.523 |
Maduwang | 0.182 | 28.587 | 0.370 | -14.783 |
Figure 9 Water balance components for the conventional and Climate Forecast System Reanalysis (CFSR) weather data simulations in the Bahe River Basin (Rainfall, average annual precipitation; PET, potential evapotranspiration; ET, actual evapotranspiration; WYLD, water yield (= SUR_Q + LAT_Q+GW_Q-TLOSS); SUR_Q, surface runoff contribution to streamflow; GW_Q, groundwater contribution to streamflow; LAT_Q, lateral flow contribution to streamflow; SW, soil water content; PERC, water percolating passed the root zone; Q-TLOSS, transmission loss) |
Figure 10 Average monthly actual evapotranspiration simulated with conventional and Climate Forecast System Reanalysis (CFSR) weather data in the Bahe River Basin |
Figure 11 Average monthly streamflow hydrograph simulated with conventional and Climate Forecast System Reanalysis (CFSR) weather data in the Bahe River Basin |
Table 3 Advances in methods used to revise reanalysis data in recent years |
Researcher | Year | Revising data or not | Revisal method | Notes |
---|---|---|---|---|
Dile et al. | 2014 | No | - | They introduced Climate Forecast System Reanalysis (CFSR) data into a Soil Water and Assessment Tool (SWAT) model, but did not undertake a revision. |
Fuka et al. | 2014 | No | - | |
Worqlul et al. | 2014 | No | - | They found that the estimates of Multi-Sensor Precipitation Estimate-Geostationary (MPEG) and CFSR data conformed to the actual value, but CFSR overestimated or underestimated precipitation at some stations. |
Blacutt et al. | 2015 | No | - | They focused on the contrast between the statistical characteristics of CFSR and conventional weather data, ignoring their relevance at a monthly scale. |
Zhao et al. | 2015 | No | - | They used a monadic linear regression to analyze Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM) satellite data and observed precipitation data and found that the degree of fitting was relatively high. However, they did not give the fitting equation for the stations investigated. |
Yu et al. | 2015 | Yes | Error ratio method | They defined a correction coefficient (measured annual precipitation/CFSR annual precipitation), but the modified scale was large. |
Figure 12 Annual and monthly precipitation fitting between observed rainfall stations and Climate Forecast System Reanalysis (CFSR) stations |
Figure 13 Contrast in simulation results (2001-2003) before and after the revision of Climate Forecast System Reanalysis (CFSR) weather data at Maduwang hydrological station |
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
[1] |
|
[2] |
|
[3] |
|
[4] |
|
[5] |
|
[6] |
|
[7] |
|
[8] |
|
[9] |
|
[10] |
|
[11] |
|
[12] |
|
[13] |
|
[14] |
|
[15] |
|
[16] |
|
[17] |
|
[18] |
|
[19] |
|
[20] |
|
[21] |
|
[22] |
|
[23] |
|
[24] |
|
[25] |
|
[26] |
|
[27] |
|
[28] |
|
/
〈 | 〉 |