Water balance versus land surface model in the simulation of Rhine river discharges

R. T W L Hurkmans, H. De Moel, J. C J H Aerts, Peter A Troch

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

35 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Accurate streamflow simulations in large river basins are crucial to predict timing and magnitude of floods and droughts and to assess the hydrological impacts of climate change. Water balance models have been used frequently for these purposes. Compared to water balance models, however, land surface models carry the potential to more accurately estimate hydrological partitioning and thus streamflow, because they solve the coupled water and energy balance and are able to exploit a larger part of the information provided by regional climate model output than water balance models. Owing to increased model complexity, however, they are also more difficult to parameterize. The purpose of this study is to investigate and compare the accuracy of streamflow simulations of a water balance approach (Spatial Tools for River basins and Environment and Analysis of Management (STREAM)) and a land surface model (Variable Infiltration Capacity (VIC)) approach. Both models are applied to the Rhine river basin using regional climate model output as atmospheric forcing, and are evaluated using observed streamflow and lysimeter data. We find that VIC is more robust and less dependent on model calibration. Although STREAM performs better during the calibration period (Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency (E) of 0.47 versus E = 0.29 for VIC), VIC more accurately simulates discharge during the validation period, including peak flows (E = 0.31 versus E = 0.21 for STREAM). This is the case for most locations throughout the basin, except for the Alpine part where both models have difficulties due to the complex terrain and surface reservoirs. In addition, the annual evaporation cycle at the lysimeters is more realistically simulated by VIC.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article numberW01418
JournalWater Resources Research
Volume44
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 2008

Fingerprint

Rhine River
river discharge
water balance
Discharge (fluid mechanics)
water budget
land surface
simulation models
Water
Infiltration
Catchments
infiltration (hydrology)
stream flow
simulation
infiltration
river basin
Rivers
streamflow
Lysimeters
Climate models
climate models

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Environmental Science(all)
  • Environmental Chemistry
  • Aquatic Science
  • Water Science and Technology

Cite this

Water balance versus land surface model in the simulation of Rhine river discharges. / Hurkmans, R. T W L; De Moel, H.; Aerts, J. C J H; Troch, Peter A.

In: Water Resources Research, Vol. 44, No. 1, W01418, 01.2008.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Hurkmans, R. T W L ; De Moel, H. ; Aerts, J. C J H ; Troch, Peter A. / Water balance versus land surface model in the simulation of Rhine river discharges. In: Water Resources Research. 2008 ; Vol. 44, No. 1.
@article{0ae965ec65fa47b78eb222f44cea5bc4,
title = "Water balance versus land surface model in the simulation of Rhine river discharges",
abstract = "Accurate streamflow simulations in large river basins are crucial to predict timing and magnitude of floods and droughts and to assess the hydrological impacts of climate change. Water balance models have been used frequently for these purposes. Compared to water balance models, however, land surface models carry the potential to more accurately estimate hydrological partitioning and thus streamflow, because they solve the coupled water and energy balance and are able to exploit a larger part of the information provided by regional climate model output than water balance models. Owing to increased model complexity, however, they are also more difficult to parameterize. The purpose of this study is to investigate and compare the accuracy of streamflow simulations of a water balance approach (Spatial Tools for River basins and Environment and Analysis of Management (STREAM)) and a land surface model (Variable Infiltration Capacity (VIC)) approach. Both models are applied to the Rhine river basin using regional climate model output as atmospheric forcing, and are evaluated using observed streamflow and lysimeter data. We find that VIC is more robust and less dependent on model calibration. Although STREAM performs better during the calibration period (Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency (E) of 0.47 versus E = 0.29 for VIC), VIC more accurately simulates discharge during the validation period, including peak flows (E = 0.31 versus E = 0.21 for STREAM). This is the case for most locations throughout the basin, except for the Alpine part where both models have difficulties due to the complex terrain and surface reservoirs. In addition, the annual evaporation cycle at the lysimeters is more realistically simulated by VIC.",
author = "Hurkmans, {R. T W L} and {De Moel}, H. and Aerts, {J. C J H} and Troch, {Peter A}",
year = "2008",
month = "1",
doi = "10.1029/2007WR006168",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "44",
journal = "Water Resources Research",
issn = "0043-1397",
publisher = "American Geophysical Union",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Water balance versus land surface model in the simulation of Rhine river discharges

AU - Hurkmans, R. T W L

AU - De Moel, H.

AU - Aerts, J. C J H

AU - Troch, Peter A

PY - 2008/1

Y1 - 2008/1

N2 - Accurate streamflow simulations in large river basins are crucial to predict timing and magnitude of floods and droughts and to assess the hydrological impacts of climate change. Water balance models have been used frequently for these purposes. Compared to water balance models, however, land surface models carry the potential to more accurately estimate hydrological partitioning and thus streamflow, because they solve the coupled water and energy balance and are able to exploit a larger part of the information provided by regional climate model output than water balance models. Owing to increased model complexity, however, they are also more difficult to parameterize. The purpose of this study is to investigate and compare the accuracy of streamflow simulations of a water balance approach (Spatial Tools for River basins and Environment and Analysis of Management (STREAM)) and a land surface model (Variable Infiltration Capacity (VIC)) approach. Both models are applied to the Rhine river basin using regional climate model output as atmospheric forcing, and are evaluated using observed streamflow and lysimeter data. We find that VIC is more robust and less dependent on model calibration. Although STREAM performs better during the calibration period (Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency (E) of 0.47 versus E = 0.29 for VIC), VIC more accurately simulates discharge during the validation period, including peak flows (E = 0.31 versus E = 0.21 for STREAM). This is the case for most locations throughout the basin, except for the Alpine part where both models have difficulties due to the complex terrain and surface reservoirs. In addition, the annual evaporation cycle at the lysimeters is more realistically simulated by VIC.

AB - Accurate streamflow simulations in large river basins are crucial to predict timing and magnitude of floods and droughts and to assess the hydrological impacts of climate change. Water balance models have been used frequently for these purposes. Compared to water balance models, however, land surface models carry the potential to more accurately estimate hydrological partitioning and thus streamflow, because they solve the coupled water and energy balance and are able to exploit a larger part of the information provided by regional climate model output than water balance models. Owing to increased model complexity, however, they are also more difficult to parameterize. The purpose of this study is to investigate and compare the accuracy of streamflow simulations of a water balance approach (Spatial Tools for River basins and Environment and Analysis of Management (STREAM)) and a land surface model (Variable Infiltration Capacity (VIC)) approach. Both models are applied to the Rhine river basin using regional climate model output as atmospheric forcing, and are evaluated using observed streamflow and lysimeter data. We find that VIC is more robust and less dependent on model calibration. Although STREAM performs better during the calibration period (Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency (E) of 0.47 versus E = 0.29 for VIC), VIC more accurately simulates discharge during the validation period, including peak flows (E = 0.31 versus E = 0.21 for STREAM). This is the case for most locations throughout the basin, except for the Alpine part where both models have difficulties due to the complex terrain and surface reservoirs. In addition, the annual evaporation cycle at the lysimeters is more realistically simulated by VIC.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=39749097806&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=39749097806&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1029/2007WR006168

DO - 10.1029/2007WR006168

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:39749097806

VL - 44

JO - Water Resources Research

JF - Water Resources Research

SN - 0043-1397

IS - 1

M1 - W01418

ER -