Water resources reanalysis (WRR) can be used as a numerical tool to advance our understanding of hydrological processes where in situ observations are limited. However, WRR products are associated with uncertainty that needs to be quantified to improve usability of such products in water resources applications. In this study, we evaluate estimates of water cycle components from 18 state-of-the-art WRR datasets derived from different land surface/hydrological models, meteorological forcing, and precipitation datasets. The evaluation was conducted at three spatial scales in the upper Blue Nile basin in Ethiopia. Precipitation, streamflow, evapotranspiration (ET), and terrestrial water storage (TWS) were evaluated against in situ daily precipitation and streamflow measurements, remote sensing–derived ET, and the NASA Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) product, respectively. Our results highlight the current strengths and limitations of the available WRR datasets in analyzing the hydrological cycle and dynamics of the study basins, showing an overall underestimation of ET and TWS and overestimation of streamflow. While calibration improves streamflow simulation, it results in a relatively poorer performance in terms of ET. In addition, we show that the differences in the schemes used in the various land surface models resulted in significant differences in the estimation of the water cycle components from the respective WRR products, while we noted small differences among the products related to precipitation forcing. We did not identify a single product that consistently outperformed others; however, we found that there are specific WRR products that provided accurate representation of a single component of the water cycle (e.g., only runoff) in the area.
Numerous studies have examined the reliability of various precipitation products over the Mekong River Basin (MRB) and modeled its basin hydrology. However, there is a lack of comprehensive studies on precipitation‐induced uncertainties in hydrological simulations using process‐based land surface models. This study examines the propagation of precipitation uncertainty into hydrological simulations over the entire MRB using the Community Land Model version 5 (CLM5) at a high spatial resolution of 0.05° (∼5 km) and without any parameter calibration. Simulations conducted using different precipitation datasets are compared to investigate the discrepancies in streamflow, terrestrial water storage (TWS), soil moisture, and evapotranspiration (ET) caused by precipitation uncertainty. Results indicate that precipitation is a key determinant of simulated streamflow in the MRB; peak flow and soil moisture are particularly sensitive to precipitation input. Further, precipitation data with a higher spatial resolution did not improve the simulations, contrary to the common perception that using meteorological forcing with higher spatial resolution would improve hydrological simulations. In addition, since high flow indicators are particularly influenced by precipitation data, the choice of precipitation data could directly impact flood pulse simulations in the MRB. Notable differences are also found among TWS, soil moisture, and ET simulated using different precipitation products. Moreover, TWS, soil moisture, and ET exhibit a varying degree of sensitivity to precipitation uncertainty. This study provides crucial insights on precipitation‐induced uncertainties in process‐based hydrological modeling and uncovers these uncertainties in the MRB.
more » « less- Award ID(s):
- 1752729
- PAR ID:
- 10375645
- Publisher / Repository:
- DOI PREFIX: 10.1029
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Water Resources Research
- Volume:
- 58
- Issue:
- 2
- ISSN:
- 0043-1397
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
more » « less
-
more » « less
Abstract Precipitation is the primary driver of hydrological models, and its spatial and temporal variability have a great impact on water partitioning. However, in data‐sparse regions, uncertainty in precipitation estimates is high and the sensitivity of water partitioning to this uncertainty is unknown. This is a particular challenge in drylands (semi‐arid and arid regions) where the water balance is highly sensitive to rainfall, yet there is commonly a lack of in situ rain gauge data. To understand the impact of precipitation uncertainty on the water balance in drylands, here we have performed simulations with a process‐based hydrological model developed to characterize the water balance in arid and semi‐arid regions (DRYP: DRYland water Partitioning model). We performed a series of numerical analyses in the Upper Ewaso Ng'iro basin, Kenya driven by three gridded precipitation datasets with different spatio‐temporal resolutions (IMERG, MSWEP, and ERA5), evaluating simulations against streamflow observations and remotely sensed data products of soil moisture, actual evapotranspiration, and total water storage. We found that despite the great differences in the spatial distribution of rainfall across a climatic gradient within the basin, DRYP shows good performance for representing streamflow (KGE >0.6), soil moisture, actual evapotranspiration, and total water storage (
r >0.5). However, the choice of precipitation datasets greatly influences surface (infiltration, runoff, and transmission losses) and subsurface fluxes (groundwater recharge and discharge) across different climatic zones of the Ewaso Ng'iro basin. Within humid areas, evapotranspiration does not show sensitivity to the choice of precipitation dataset, however, in dry lowland areas it becomes more sensitive to precipitation rates as water‐limited conditions develop. The analysis shows that the highest rates of precipitation produce high rates of diffuse recharge in Ewaso uplands and also propagate into runoff, transmission losses and, ultimately focused recharge, with the latter acting as the main mechanism of groundwater recharge in low dry areas. The results from this modelling exercise suggest that care must be taken in selecting forcing precipitation data to drive hydrological modelling efforts, especially in basins that span a climatic gradient. These results also suggest that more effort is required to reduce uncertainty between different precipitation datasets, which will in turn result in more consistent quantification of the water balance. -
more » « less
Abstract This article presents a hydrological reconstruction of the Upper Colorado River Basin with an hourly temporal resolution, and 1-km spatial resolution from October 1982 to September 2019. The validated dataset includes a suite of hydrologic variables including streamflow, water table depth, snow water equivalent (SWE) and evapotranspiration (ET) simulated by an integrated hydrological model, ParFlow-CLM. The dataset was validated over the period with a combination of point observations and remotely sensed products. These datasets provide a long-term, natural-flow, simulation for one of the most over-allocated basins in the world.
-
more » « less
Abstract Accurate soil moisture and streamflow data are an aspirational need of many hydrologically relevant fields. Model simulated soil moisture and streamflow hold promise but models require validation prior to application. Calibration methods are commonly used to improve model fidelity but misrepresentation of the true dynamics remains a challenge. In this study, we leverage soil parameter estimates from the Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) database and the probability mapping of SSURGO (POLARIS) to improve the representation of hydrologic processes in the Weather Research and Forecasting Hydrological modeling system (WRF‐Hydro) over a central California domain. Our results show WRF‐Hydro soil moisture exhibits increased correlation coefficients (
r ), reduced biases, and increased Kling‐Gupta Efficiencies (KGEs) across seven in situ soil moisture observing stations after updating the model's soil parameters according to POLARIS. Compared to four well‐established soil moisture data sets including Soil Moisture Active Passive data and three Phase 2 North American Land Data Assimilation System land surface models, our POLARIS‐adjusted WRF‐Hydro simulations produce the highest mean KGE (0.69) across the seven stations. More importantly, WRF‐Hydro streamflow fidelity also increases, especially in the case where the model domain is set up with SSURGO‐informed total soil thickness. The magnitude and timing of peak flow events are better captured,r increases across nine United States Geological Survey stream gages, and the mean KGE across seven of the nine gages increases from 0.12 to 0.66. Our pre‐calibration parameter estimate approach, which is transferable to other spatially distributed hydrological models, can substantially improve a model's performance, helping reduce calibration efforts and computational costs. -
Remotely sensed hydrologic variables, in conjunction with streamflow data, have been increasingly used to conduct multivariable calibration of hydrologic model parameters. Here, we calibrated the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) model using different combinations of streamflow and remotely sensed hydrologic variables, including Atmosphere–Land Exchange Inverse (ALEXI) Evapotranspiration (ET), Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) ET, and Soil MERGE (SMERGE) soil moisture. The results show that adding remotely sensed ET and soil moisture to the traditionally used streamflow for model calibration can impact the number and values of parameters sensitive to hydrologic modeling, but it does not necessarily improve the model performance. However, using remotely sensed ET or soil moisture data alone led to deterioration in model performance as compared with using streamflow only. In addition, we observed large discrepancies between ALEXI or MODIS ET data and the choice between these two datasets for model calibration can have significant implications for the performance of the SWAT model. The use of different combinations of streamflow, ET, and soil moisture data also resulted in noticeable differences in simulated hydrologic processes, such as runoff, percolation, and groundwater discharge. Finally, we compared the performance of SWAT and the SWAT-Carbon (SWAT-C) model under different multivariate calibration setups, and these two models exhibited pronounced differences in their performance in the validation period. Based on these results, we recommend (1) the assessment of various remotely sensed data (when multiple options available) for model calibration before choosing them for complementing the traditionally used streamflow data and (2) that different model structures be considered in the model calibration process to support robust hydrologic modeling.more » « less
