Hydrological modelling uncertainty analysis for different flow quantiles: a case study in two hydro-geographically different watersheds

References

• Abbaspour, K.C., 2013. SWAT-CUP 2012: SWAT calibration and uncertainty programs–a user manual. Dübendorf, Switzerland: Eawag, 103.
   Google Scholar
• Abbaspour, K.C., Vaghefi, S.A., and Srinivasan, R., 2017. A guideline for successful calibration and uncertainty analysis for soil and water assessment: A review of papers from the 2016 International SWAT Conference. doi: 10.3390/w10010006
   Google Scholar
• Ajami, N.K., et al., 2006. Multimodel combination techniques for analysis of hydrological simulations: application to distributed model intercomparison project results. Journal of Hydrometeorology, 7 (4), 755–768. doi:10.1175/JHM519.1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arabi, M., et al., 2007. Multiobjective sensitivity analysis of sediment and nitrogen processes with a watershed model. Water Resources Research, 43 (6). doi:10.1029/2006WR005463
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arnold, J.G., et al., 1998. Large area hydrologic modeling and assessment part I: model development 1. JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 34 (1), 73–89. doi:10.1111/j.1752-1688.1998.tb05961.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arnold, J.G., et al., 2012. SWAT: model use, calibration, and validation. Transactions of the ASABE, 55 (4), 1491–1508. doi:10.13031/2013.42256
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Azari, M., et al., 2016. Climate change impacts on streamflow and sediment yield in the North of Iran. Hydrological Sciences Journal, 61 (1), 123–133. doi:10.1080/02626667.2014.967695
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bárdossy, A. and Das, T., 2008. Influence of rainfall observation network on model calibration and application. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences Discussions, 12 (1), 77–89. doi:10.5194/hess-12-77-2008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beven, K., 1989. Changing ideas in hydrology—the case of physically-based models. Journal of Hydrology, 105 (1–2), 157–172. doi:10.1016/0022-1694(89)90101-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beven, K. and Binley, A., 1992. The future of distributed models: model calibration and uncertainty prediction. Hydrological Processes, 6 (3), 279–298. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1099-1085
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beven, K. and Freer, J., 2001. Equifinality, data assimilation, and uncertainty estimation in mechanistic modelling of complex environmental systems using the GLUE methodology. Journal of Hydrology, 249 (1–4), 11–29. doi:10.1016/S0022-1694(01)00421-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bingner, R., et al., 1997. Effect of watershed subdivision on simulation runoff and fine sediment yield. Transactions of the ASAE, 40 (5), 1329–1335. doi:10.13031/2013.21391
   Google Scholar
• Blöschl, G. and Sivapalan, M., 1995. Scale issues in hydrological modelling: a review. Hydrological Processes, 9 (3–4), 251–290. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1099-1085
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carpenter, T.M. and Georgakakos, K.P., 2006. Intercomparison of lumped versus distributed hydrologic model ensemble simulations on operational forecast scales. Journal of Hydrology, 329 (1–2), 174–185. doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2006.02.013
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chaubey, I., et al., 2005. Effect of DEM data resolution on SWAT output uncertainty. Hydrological Processes: An International Journal, 19 (3), 621–628. doi:10.1002/hyp.5607
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cibin, R., Sudheer, K., and Chaubey, I., 2010. Sensitivity and identifiability of stream flow generation parameters of the SWAT model. Hydrological Processes, 24 (9), 1133–1148. doi:10.1002/hyp.v24:9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dehotin, J. and Braud, I., 2008. Which spatial discretization for distributed hydrological models? Proposition of a methodology and illustration for medium to large-scale catchments. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 12 (3), 769–796. doi:10.5194/hess-12-769-2008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dixon, B. and Earls, J., 2012. Effects of urbanization on streamflow using SWAT with real and simulated meteorological data. Applied Geography, 35 (1–2), 174–190. doi:10.1016/j.apgeog.2012.06.010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eckhardt, K. and Arnold, J., 2001. Automatic calibration of a distributed catchment model. Journal of Hydrology, 251 (1–2), 103–109. doi:10.1016/S0022-1694(01)00429-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fan, Y., et al., 2015. A coupled ensemble filtering and probabilistic collocation approach for uncertainty quantification of hydrological models. Journal of Hydrology, 530, 255–272. doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2015.09.035
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fan, Y., et al., 2017a. Development of a copula‐based particle filter (C op PF) approach for hydrologic data assimilation under consideration of parameter interdependence. Water Resources Research, 53 (6), 4850–4875. doi:10.1002/2016WR020144
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fan, Y., et al., 2017b. Development of integrated approaches for hydrological data assimilation through combination of ensemble Kalman filter and particle filter methods. Journal of Hydrology, 550, 412–426. doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2017.05.010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Faramarzi, M., et al., 2013. Modeling impacts of climate change on freshwater availability in Africa. Journal of Hydrology, 480, 85–101. doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.12.016
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• FitzHugh, T.W. and Mackay, D., 2000. Impacts of input parameter spatial aggregation on an agricultural nonpoint source pollution model. Journal of Hydrology, 236 (1–2), 35–53. doi:10.1016/S0022-1694(00)00276-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freer, J., Beven, K., and Ambroise, B., 1996. Bayesian estimation of uncertainty in runoff prediction and the value of data: an application of the GLUE approach. Water Resources Research, 32 (7), 2161–2173. doi:10.1029/95WR03723
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gao, H., et al., 2010. Water budget record from Variable Infiltration Capacity (VIC) model. http://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/id/eprint/89407
   Google Scholar
• Gassman, P.W., et al., 2007. The Soil and Water Assessment Tool: historical development, applications, and future research directions. Transactions of the ASABE, 50 (4), 1211–1250. doi:10.13031/2013.23637
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haverkamp, S., et al., 2002. Subwatershed spatial analysis tool: discretization of a distributed hydrologic model by statistical criteria 1. JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 38 (6), 1723–1733. doi:10.1111/j.1752-1688.2002.tb04377.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haverkamp, S., Fohrer, N., and Frede, H.G., 2005. Assessment of the effect of land use patterns on hydrologic landscape functions: A comprehensive GIS‐based tool to minimize model uncertainty resulting from spatial aggregation. Hydrological Processes: An International Journal, 19 (3), 715–727. doi:10.1002/hyp.5626
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jha, M., et al., 2004. Effect of watershed subdivision on SWAT flow, sediment, and nutrient predictions. JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 40 (3), 811–825. doi:10.1111/j.1752-1688.2004.tb04460.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kannan, N. and Jeong, J., 2011. An approach for estimating stream health using flow duration curves and indices of hydrologic alteration. Report Prepared for the United States Environmental Protection Agency-Retion 6. Dallas, TX: United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water.
   Google Scholar
• Kavetski, D., Kuczera, G., and Franks, S.W., 2006. Bayesian analysis of input uncertainty in hydrological modeling: 2. Application. Water Resources Research, 42 (3). doi: 10.1029/2005WR004376
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krysanova, V., et al., 2000. SWIM (Soil and Water Integrated Model): user Manual. Germany: Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research Potsdam.
   Google Scholar
• Kumar, S. and Merwade, V., 2009. Impact of Watershed Subdivision and Soil Data Resolution on SWAT Model Calibration and Parameter Uncertainty 1. JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 45 (5), 1179–1196. doi:10.1111/jawr.2009.45.issue-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lenhart, T., et al., 2002. Comparison of two different approaches of sensitivity analysis. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C, 27 (9–10), 645–654. doi:10.1016/S1474-7065(02)00049-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu, Z., et al., 2011. Evaluation of two statistical downscaling models for daily precipitation over an arid basin in China. International Journal of Climatology, 31 (13), 2006–2020. doi:10.1002/joc.2211
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lohmann, D., et al., 1998. Regional scale hydrology: I. Formulation of the VIC-2L model coupled to a routing model. Hydrological Sciences Journal, 43 (1), 131–141. doi:10.1080/02626669809492107
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mamillapalli, S., et al., 1996. Effect of spatial variability on basin scale modeling. In Proceedings, Third International Conference/Workshop on Integrating GIS and Environmental Modeling, Santa Fe, New Mexico.
   Google Scholar
• Moriasi, D.N., et al., 2007. Model evaluation guidelines for systematic quantification of accuracy in watershed simulations. Transactions of the ASABE, 50 (3), 885–900. doi:10.13031/2013.23153
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moulin, L., Gaume, E., and Obled, C., 2009. Uncertainties on mean areal precipitation: assessment and impact on streamflow simulations. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences Discussions, 13 (2), 99–114. doi:10.5194/hess-13-99-2009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nash, J.E. and Sutcliffe, J.V., 1970. River flow forecasting through conceptual models part I—A discussion of principles. Journal of Hydrology, 10 (3), 282–290. doi:10.1016/0022-1694(70)90255-6
   Google Scholar
• Neitsch, S.L., et al., 2005. Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) theoretical documentation, version 2005. Temple, TX: Grassland Soil and Water Research Laboratory. Agricultural Research Service, Blackland Research Center, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station.
   Google Scholar
• Neitsch, S.L., et al., 2011. Soil and Water Assessment Tool theoretical documentation version 2009. Texas Water Resources Institute. http://hdl.handle.net/1969.1/128050.
   Google Scholar
• Neuman, S.P., 2003. Maximum likelihood Bayesian averaging of uncertain model predictions. Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment, 17 (5), 291–305. doi:10.1007/s00477-003-0151-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pfannerstill, M., Guse, B., and Fohrer, N., 2014. Smart low flow signature metrics for an improved overall performance evaluation of hydrological models. Journal of Hydrology, 510, 447–458. doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2013.12.044
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sivapalan, M. and Kalma, J.D., 1995. Scale problems in hydrology: contributions of the Robertson Workshop. Hydrological Processes, 9 (3–4), 243–250. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1099-1085
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spear, R. and Hornberger, G., 1980. Eutrophication in Peel Inlet—II. Identification of critical uncertainties via generalized sensitivity analysis. Water Research, 14 (1), 43–49. doi:10.1016/0043-1354(80)90040-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sun, X., et al., 2000. Flood estimation using radar and raingauge data. Journal of Hydrology, 239 (1–4), 4–18. doi:10.1016/S0022-1694(00)00350-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tegegne, G., et al., 2017b. Selecting hydrologic modelling approaches for water resource assessment in the Yongdam watershed. Journal of Hydrology (New Zealand), 56 (2), 155–164.
   Google Scholar
• Tegegne, G. and Kim, Y.-O., 2018. Modelling ungauged catchments using the catchment runoff response similarity. Journal of Hydrology, 564, 452–466. doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2018.07.042
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tegegne, G., Park, D.K., and Kim, Y.-O., 2017a. Comparison of hydrological models for the assessment of water resources in a data-scarce region, the Upper Blue Nile River Basin. Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies, 14, 49–66.
   Google Scholar
• Thiemann, M., et al., 2001. Bayesian recursive parameter estimation for hydrologic models. Water Resources Research, 37 (10), 2521–2535. doi:10.1029/2000WR900405
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tian, F., et al., 2016. Effects of ecological engineering on water balance under two different vegetation scenarios in the Qilian Mountain, northwestern China. Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies, 5, 324–335.
   Google Scholar
• Uniyal, B., Jha, M.K., and Verma, A.K., 2015. Parameter identification and uncertainty analysis for simulating streamflow in a river basin of Eastern India. Hydrological Processes, 29 (17), 3744–3766. doi:10.1002/hyp.v29.17
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Griensven, A., et al., 2006. A global sensitivity analysis tool for the parameters of multi-variable catchment models. Journal of Hydrology, 324 (1), 10–23. doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2005.09.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vrugt, J.A., et al., 2003. A shuffled complex evolution metropolis algorithm for optimization and uncertainty assessment of hydrologic model parameters. Water Resources Research, 39 (8). doi:10.1029/2002WR001642
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vrugt, J.A., et al., 2005. Improved treatment of uncertainty in hydrologic modeling: combining the strengths of global optimization and data assimilation. Water Resources Research, 41 (1). doi:10.1029/2004WR003059
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang, X., et al., 2015. Assessing the effects of precipitation and temperature changes on hydrological processes in a glacier‐dominated catchment. Hydrological Processes, 29 (23), 4830–4845. doi:10.1002/hyp.10538
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang, Y., et al., 2016. Impact of spatial discretization of hydrologic models on spatial distribution of nonpoint source pollution hotspots. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 21 (12), 04016047. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0001455
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Winchell, M., et al., 2007. ArcSWAT interface for SWAT 2005. User’sGuide, Temple: Blackland Research Center, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station.
   Google Scholar
• Yuan, D., et al., 2007. Development of an integrated model for assessing the impact of diffuse and point source pollution on coastal waters. Environmental Modelling & Software, 22 (6), 871–879. doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2006.05.010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang, D., et al., 2015a. Improved calibration scheme of SWAT by separating wet and dry seasons. Ecological Modelling, 301, 54–61. doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2015.01.018
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang, L., et al., 2015b. Modeling land-use and land-cover change and hydrological responses under consistent climate change scenarios in the Heihe River Basin, China. Water Resources Management, 29 (13), 4701–4717. doi:10.1007/s11269-015-1085-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar