4.7 Article

Testing a distributed snowpack simulation model against spatial observations

Journal

JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGY
Volume 328, Issue 3-4, Pages 453-466

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2005.12.012

Keywords

distributed snowpack modelling; validation; testing; landsat; landscape; yellowstone; wildlife

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A snowpack simulation model was developed for high-resolution spatial prediction of wildlife habitat over large areas (100-1000 km). The model simulates a single layer water and energy balance, based on the Utah Energy Balance (UEB) model. It is driven by daily precipitation and temperature data, and 28.5-m maps of mean annual precipitation, terrain, vegetation, and geothermal heat flux. Parameters were calibrated against daily snow water equivalent (SWE) data at SNOTEL sites. The model was tested against spatial SWE data collected throughout the landscape, as well as snowpack temperature data, and photographic data. Spatial SWE data were supplied as a set of 40 high-accuracy means for different landscape strata, based on 1058 snow cores. At the time of peak snowpack accumulation in 2002, differences between modeled and measured SWE at the pixel scale were apportioned into three potential components: field sampling error (similar to 22%), parameter mapping error (similar to 27%), and actual model functional error (similar to 51 %). Since the present study controlled for sampling and mapping error, clear priorities could be identified for reducing model functional error, including improvement of sub-models for snow interception, and snowpack thermal dynamics. The utility and detectability of improvements along these lines is contingent on controlling and quantifying both sampling and mapping error. The model strikes a unique balance between physical detail and spatial resolution and extent that is well suited for use in wildlife studies. (c) 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available