在国家尺度水文模型中忽略水库蓄水的后果:对主要流量统计数据的评估

IF 2.6 4区 环境科学与生态学 Q3 ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL
Glenn A. Hodgkins, Thomas M. Over, Robert W. Dudley, Amy M. Russell, Jacob H. LaFontaine
{"title":"在国家尺度水文模型中忽略水库蓄水的后果:对主要流量统计数据的评估","authors":"Glenn A. Hodgkins,&nbsp;Thomas M. Over,&nbsp;Robert W. Dudley,&nbsp;Amy M. Russell,&nbsp;Jacob H. LaFontaine","doi":"10.1111/1752-1688.13161","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>A better understanding of modeled streamflow errors related to basin reservoir storage is needed for large regions, which normally have many ungaged basins with reservoirs. We quantified the difference between modeled and observed streamflows for one process-based and three statistical-transfer hydrologic models, none of which explicitly accounted for reservoir storage. Streamflow statistics representing low to high flows, seasonality, annual variability, and daily autocorrelation were examined at 1082 study basins across the conterminous USA. All models increasingly overpredict (or decreasingly underpredict) observed annual maximum flows with increasing storage. Correlations between absolute values of errors for low-flow statistics and storage are often larger in magnitude than those for signed errors—additional storage is associated with increases in model errors in both directions even when its overall effect in one direction is weak. The rate of increase in absolute values of model errors was nonlinear for most statistics. For low flows, model errors had a change point to larger errors at 48 days of reservoir storage (relative to long-term mean daily flow); mean and high flows had change points at 147 to 176 days. We present predicted-to-observed errors for nine streamflow statistics over a large range of reservoir storage to help modelers and users of modeled streamflow understand the amount of storage for which explicit reservoir modeling is needed.</p>","PeriodicalId":17234,"journal":{"name":"Journal of The American Water Resources Association","volume":"60 1","pages":"110-131"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The consequences of neglecting reservoir storage in national-scale hydrologic models: An appraisal of key streamflow statistics\",\"authors\":\"Glenn A. Hodgkins,&nbsp;Thomas M. Over,&nbsp;Robert W. Dudley,&nbsp;Amy M. Russell,&nbsp;Jacob H. LaFontaine\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/1752-1688.13161\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>A better understanding of modeled streamflow errors related to basin reservoir storage is needed for large regions, which normally have many ungaged basins with reservoirs. We quantified the difference between modeled and observed streamflows for one process-based and three statistical-transfer hydrologic models, none of which explicitly accounted for reservoir storage. Streamflow statistics representing low to high flows, seasonality, annual variability, and daily autocorrelation were examined at 1082 study basins across the conterminous USA. All models increasingly overpredict (or decreasingly underpredict) observed annual maximum flows with increasing storage. Correlations between absolute values of errors for low-flow statistics and storage are often larger in magnitude than those for signed errors—additional storage is associated with increases in model errors in both directions even when its overall effect in one direction is weak. The rate of increase in absolute values of model errors was nonlinear for most statistics. For low flows, model errors had a change point to larger errors at 48 days of reservoir storage (relative to long-term mean daily flow); mean and high flows had change points at 147 to 176 days. We present predicted-to-observed errors for nine streamflow statistics over a large range of reservoir storage to help modelers and users of modeled streamflow understand the amount of storage for which explicit reservoir modeling is needed.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":17234,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of The American Water Resources Association\",\"volume\":\"60 1\",\"pages\":\"110-131\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of The American Water Resources Association\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1752-1688.13161\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of The American Water Resources Association","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1752-1688.13161","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

对于大面积地区,需要更好地了解与流域水库蓄水相关的模型流误差,因为这些地区通常有许多没有水库监测的流域。我们量化了一个基于过程的水文模型和三个统计传递水文模型的模型流与观测流之间的差异,这些模型都没有明确考虑水库蓄水。我们在美国本土的 1082 个研究流域考察了从低流量到高流量、季节性、年变异性和日自相关性的溪流统计数据。随着蓄水量的增加,所有模型都会越来越高地预测(或越来越低地预测)观测到的年最大流量。低流量统计误差绝对值与储量之间的相关性往往比符号误差的相关性更大--即使在一个方向上的总体影响较弱时,增加储量也会导致模型误差在两个方向上的增加。对于大多数统计量而言,模型误差绝对值的增加率是非线性的。对于小流量,模型误差在水库蓄水 48 天(相对于长期平均日流量)时出现较大误差的变化点;平均流量和大流量的变化点在 147 天至 176 天。我们提出了在较大的水库蓄水量范围内,九种溪流统计量的预测与观测误差,以帮助建模人员和模型溪流用户了解需要进行明确水库建模的蓄水量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The consequences of neglecting reservoir storage in national-scale hydrologic models: An appraisal of key streamflow statistics

A better understanding of modeled streamflow errors related to basin reservoir storage is needed for large regions, which normally have many ungaged basins with reservoirs. We quantified the difference between modeled and observed streamflows for one process-based and three statistical-transfer hydrologic models, none of which explicitly accounted for reservoir storage. Streamflow statistics representing low to high flows, seasonality, annual variability, and daily autocorrelation were examined at 1082 study basins across the conterminous USA. All models increasingly overpredict (or decreasingly underpredict) observed annual maximum flows with increasing storage. Correlations between absolute values of errors for low-flow statistics and storage are often larger in magnitude than those for signed errors—additional storage is associated with increases in model errors in both directions even when its overall effect in one direction is weak. The rate of increase in absolute values of model errors was nonlinear for most statistics. For low flows, model errors had a change point to larger errors at 48 days of reservoir storage (relative to long-term mean daily flow); mean and high flows had change points at 147 to 176 days. We present predicted-to-observed errors for nine streamflow statistics over a large range of reservoir storage to help modelers and users of modeled streamflow understand the amount of storage for which explicit reservoir modeling is needed.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of The American Water Resources Association
Journal of The American Water Resources Association 环境科学-地球科学综合
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
12.50%
发文量
100
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: JAWRA seeks to be the preeminent scholarly publication on multidisciplinary water resources issues. JAWRA papers present ideas derived from multiple disciplines woven together to give insight into a critical water issue, or are based primarily upon a single discipline with important applications to other disciplines. Papers often cover the topics of recent AWRA conferences such as riparian ecology, geographic information systems, adaptive management, and water policy. JAWRA authors present work within their disciplinary fields to a broader audience. Our Associate Editors and reviewers reflect this diversity to ensure a knowledgeable and fair review of a broad range of topics. We particularly encourage submissions of papers which impart a ''take home message'' our readers can use.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信