4.6 Article

Flood Simulations and Uncertainty Analysis for the Pearl River Basin Using the Coupled Land Surface and Hydrological Model System

Journal

WATER
Volume 9, Issue 6, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/w9060391

Keywords

coupled land surface-hydrology model; flood simulation; uncertainty analysis; Pearl River Basin

Funding

  1. International Science and Technology Cooperation Program of China [2016YFE0102400]
  2. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2016YFC0402702]
  3. National Natural Science Foundation of China [71503265]
  4. Special Scientific Research Fund of the Meteorological Public Welfare Profession of China [GYHY201406021]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The performances of hydrological simulations for the Pearl River Basin in China were analysed using the Coupled Land Surface and Hydrological Model System (CLHMS). Three datasets, including East Asia (EA), high-resolution gauge satellite-merged China Merged Precipitation Analysis (CMPA)-Daily, and the Asian Precipitation Highly-Resolved Observational Data Integration Towards Evaluation (APHRODITE) daily precipitation were used to drive the CLHMS model to simulate daily hydrological processes from 1998 to 2006. The results indicate that the precipitation data was the most important source of uncertainty in the hydrological simulation. The simulated streamflow driven by the CMPA-Daily agreed well with observations, with a Pearson correlation coefficient (PMC) greater than 0.70 and an index of agreement (IOA) similarity coefficient greater than 0.82 at Liuzhou, Shijiao, and Wuzhou Stations. Comparison of the Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency coefficient (NSE) shows that the peak flow simulation ability of CLHMS driven with the CMPA-Daily rainfall is relatively superior to that with the EA and APHRODITE datasets. The simulation results for the high-flow periods in 1998 and 2005 indicate that the CLHMS is promising for its future application in the flood simulation and prediction.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available