Impact of spatial aggregation of inputs and parameters on the efficiency of rainfall‐runoff models: A theoretical study using chimera watersheds

[1] This paper examines the respective merits of aggregative and disaggregative approaches in hydrological modeling and aims at determining how to identify the most appropriate level of spatial distribution in rainfall-runoff modeling. The lumped approach is compared with two types of semidistributed approaches to assess the relative importance of rainfall and parameter distribution on modeling results. In order to base these comparisons on a large number of definitely heterogeneous basins, we introduce chimera watersheds. Chimera watersheds associate two actual watersheds of similar size to constitute a third, highly heterogeneous virtual basin, where the knowledge of spatialized flows makes it possible to test disaggregated approaches and to compare them to the lumped approach. We show that the greatest portion (two thirds) of improvement contributed by spatial distribution comes from accounting for rainfall variability. If spatial distribution is considered to be a useful direction leading to improving the reliability of hydrological models, we believe that efforts should be directed first and foremost toward the use of spatially distributed rainfall data and only secondary to the disaggregation of watershed (land-surface) parameters.

[1]  P. E. O'Connell,et al.  River flow forecasting through conceptual models part II - The Brosna catchment at Ferbane , 1970 .

[2]  Victor Koren,et al.  Distributed modeling phase 1 results , 1999 .

[3]  Kieran M. O'Connor,et al.  Application of an empirical infiltration equation in the SMAR conceptual model , 1996 .

[4]  Dong-Jun Seo,et al.  Space-time scale sensitivity of the Sacramento model to radar-gage precipitation inputs , 1997 .

[5]  Michael Hauhs,et al.  Summary of a workshop on ecosystem modeling : the end of an era? , 1996 .

[6]  S. Sorooshian,et al.  Calibration of watershed models , 2003 .

[7]  V. Singh,et al.  The HBV model. , 1995 .

[8]  M. Booij.  Appropriate modelling of climate change impacts on river flooding , 2002 .

[9]  Konstantine P. Georgakakos,et al.  A methodology for assessing the utility of distributed model forecast applications in an operational environment , 2003 .

[10]  R. Allan Freeze,et al.  A stochastic‐conceptual analysis of rainfall‐runoff processes on a hillslope , 1980 .

[11]  Soroosh Sorooshian,et al.  Toward improved streamflow forecasts: value of semidistributed modeling , 2001 .

[12]  Philippe H. Martin.  Physics of stamp-collecting? Thoughts on ecosystem model design , 1996 .

[13]  C. Perrin,et al.  Improvement of a parsimonious model for streamflow simulation , 2003 .

[14]  Juan B. Valdés,et al.  On the influence of the spatial distribution of rainfall on storm runoff , 1979 .

[15]  Victor Koren,et al.  Comparing Mean Areal Precipitation Estimates from NEXRAD and Rain Gauge Networks , 1999 .

[16]  K. Beven,et al.  ASSESSING THE EFFECT OF SPATIAL PATTERN OF PRECIPITATION IN MODELING STREAM FLOW HYDROGRAPHS , 1982 .

[17]  V. Klemeš,et al.  Operational Testing of Hydrological Simulation Models , 2022 .

[18]  Dong-Jun Seo,et al.  Scale dependencies of hydrologic models to spatial variability of precipitation , 1999 .

[19]  K. Beven,et al.  A physically based, variable contributing area model of basin hydrology , 1979 .

[20]  Vazken Andréassian,et al.  The exponential store: a correct formulation for rainfall—runoff modelling , 2003 .

[21]  F. Diermanse,et al.  Physically based modelling of rainfall-runoff processes , 2001 .

[22]  V. Singh,et al.  Computer Models of Watershed Hydrology , 1995 .

[23]  Murugesu Sivapalan,et al.  Downward approach to hydrological prediction , 2003 .

[24]  Nilo Nascimento,et al.  GR3J: a daily watershed model with three free parameters , 1999 .

[25]  Victor Koren,et al.  Use of Next Generation Weather Radar Data and Basin Disaggregation to Improve Continuous Hydrograph Simulations , 2004 .

[26]  Robert Muetzelfeldt,et al.  Model transformation rules and model disaggregation , 1996 .

[27]  Keith Beven,et al.  The limits of splitting: Hydrology , 1996 .

[28]  J. Refsgaard,et al.  Operational Validation and Intercomparison of Different Types of Hydrological Models , 1996 .

[29]  Raghavan Srinivasan,et al.  SUBWATERSHED SPATIAL ANALYSIS TOOL: DISCRETIZATION OF A DISTRIBUTED HYDROLOGIC MODEL BY STATISTICAL CRITERIA 1 , 2002 .

[30]  Bruno Merz,et al.  An analysis of the effects of spatial variability of soil and soil moisture on runoff , 1997 .

[31]  A. Becker,et al.  Disaggregation, aggregation and spatial scaling in hydrological modelling , 1999 .

[32]  J. Nash,et al.  River flow forecasting through conceptual models part I — A discussion of principles☆ , 1970 .