4.6 Article

Lumped parameter sensitivity analysis of a distributed hydrological model within tropical and temperate catchments

期刊

HYDROLOGICAL PROCESSES
卷 25, 期 15, 页码 2405-2421

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/hyp.8017

关键词

distributed hydrological model; lumped parameter sensitivity

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [9614259, EAR-0000546]
  2. University of Washington under its PRISM (Puget Sound Regional Synthesis Model) initiative
  3. Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Ocean (JISAO) at the University of Washington under NOAA [NA17RJ1232]
  4. Asia Pacific Network [ARCP2008-01 CMY]
  5. Division Of Earth Sciences
  6. Directorate For Geosciences [9614259] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Parameter sensitivity of the Distributed Hydrology-Soil-Vegetation Model (DHSVM) was studied in two contrasting environments: (1) Pang Khum Experimental Watershed (PKEW) in tropical northern Thailand; and (2) Cedar River basin (CRB) in Washington State of the temperate US Pacific Northwest. The analysis shows that for both basins, the most sensitive soil parameters were porosity, lateral saturated hydraulic conductivity, and the exponential decrease rate of lateral saturated hydraulic conductivity with soil depth. The most sensitive vegetation parameters were leaf area index, vegetation height, vapour pressure deficit, minimum stomatal resistance (for both grassland and forest scenarios), hemisphere fractional coverage, overstory fractional coverage, and trunk space (for the forest scenario only). Parameter sensitivity was basin-specific, with the humid, temperate CRB being more influenced by vegetation parameters, while tropical PKEW was more influenced by soil properties. Increases and decreases in parameter values resulted in opposite and unequal changes in bias and root mean square error (RMSE), indicating the non-linearity of physical process represented in the hydrological model. Copyright (C) 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据