4.4 Article

New Multisite Cascading Calibration Approach for Hydrological Models: Case Study in the Red River Basin Using the VIC Model

Journal

JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING
Volume 21, Issue 2, Pages -

Publisher

ASCE-AMER SOC CIVIL ENGINEERS
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0001282

Keywords

Hydrological model; Multisite calibration; Optimization; Shuffled complex evolution method-University of Arizona; SCE-UA)

Funding

  1. USGS South Central Climate Science Center at the University of Oklahoma [G13AC00386]
  2. Disaster Relief Appropriations Act of 2013 [P.L. 113-2]
  3. NOAA [NA14OAR4830100]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A novel multisite cascading calibration (MSCC) approach using the shuffled complex evolution-University of Arizona (SCE-UA) optimization method, developed at the University of Arizona, was employed to calibrate the variable infiltration capacity (VIC) model in the Red River Basin. Model simulations were conducted at 35 nested gauging stations. Compared with simulated results using a priori parameters, single-site calibration can improve VIC model performance at specific calibration sites; however, improvement is still limited in upstream locations. The newly developed MSCC approach overcomes this limitation. Simulations using MSCC not only utilize all of the available streamflow observations but also better represent spatial heterogeneities in the model parameters. Results indicate that MSCC largely improves model performance by decreasing the number of stations with negative Nash-Sutcliffe coefficient of efficiency (NSCE) values from 69% (66%) for a priori parameters to 37% (34%) for single-site calibration to 3% (3%) for MSCC, and by increasing the number of stations with NSCE values larger than 0.5 from 9% (9%), to 23% (23%) to 34% (29%) during calibration (and validation) periods across all sites. (C) 2015 American Society of Civil Engineers.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available