4.6 Article

Benefits of Combining Satellite-Derived Snow Cover Data and Discharge Data to Calibrate a Glaciated Catchment in Sub-Arctic Iceland

期刊

WATER
卷 12, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/w12040975

关键词

glaciated-catchment modeling; conceptual hydrological model; multi-dataset calibration; Hydrological Predictions for the Environment; Geithellnaa; Iceland

资金

  1. Department of Physical Geography (Stockholm University)
  2. School of Science and Engineering (Reykjavik University)
  3. Sustainability Institute and Forum (Reykjavik University)
  4. Bolin Centre for Climate Research (Stockholm University)
  5. Icelandic Meteorological Office
  6. Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The benefits of fractional snow cover area, as an additional dataset for calibration, were evaluated for an Icelandic catchment with a low degree of glaciation and limited data. For this purpose, a Hydrological Projections for the Environment (HYPE) model was calibrated for the Geithellnaa catchment in south-east Iceland using daily discharge (Q) data and satellite-retrieved MODIS snow cover (SC) images, in a multi-dataset calibration (MDC) approach. By comparing model results using only daily discharge data with results obtained using both datasets, the value of SC data for model calibration was identified. Including SC data improved the performance of daily discharge simulations by 7% and fractional snow cover area simulations by 11%, compared with using only the daily discharge dataset (SDC). These results indicate that MDC improves the overall performance of the HYPE model, confirming previous findings. Therefore, MDC could improve discharge simulations in areas with extra sources of uncertainty, such as glaciers and snow cover. Since the change in fractional snow cover area was more accurate when MDC was applied, it can be concluded that MDC would also provide more realistic projections when calibrated parameter sets are extrapolated to different situations.

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