New Multisite Cascading Calibration Approach for Hydrological Models: Case Study in the Red River Basin Using the VIC Model
Publication: Journal of Hydrologic Engineering
Volume 21, Issue 2
Abstract
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.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
Acknowledgments
This study was supported by the USGS South Central Climate Science Center at the University of Oklahoma through Grant #G13AC00386, “Impacts of Climate Change on Flows in the Red River Basin.” Partial support for the second author was provided by the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act of 2013 (P.L. 113-2), which funded NOAA research grant NA14OAR4830100. The authors also appreciate Mr. Cody Hudson of INTERA for sharing the script to download the USGS observed streamflow data and Mr. Manabendra Saharia and Mr. Humberto Vergara for peak flow qualification of USGS streamflow stations. The authors gratefully acknowledge the editor, associate editor, and anonymous reviewers for their valuable and constructive comments on this manuscript.
References
Ajami, N. K., Gupta, H., Wagener, T., and Sorooshian, S. (2004). “Calibration of a semi-distributed hydrologic model for streamflow estimation along a river system.” J. Hydrol., 298(1–4), 112–135.
Anderson, R. M., Koren, V. I., and Reed, S. M. (2006). “Using SSURGO data to improve Sacramento model a priori parameter estimates.” J. Hydrol., 320(1–2), 103–116.
Bashford, K. E., Beven, K. J., and Young, P. C. (2002). “Observational data and scale-dependent parameterizations: Explorations using a virtual hydrological reality.” Hydrol. Process., 16(2), 293–312.
Beven, K. J., and Freer, J. (2001). “Equifinality, data assimilation, and uncertainty estimation in mechanistic modelling of complex environmental systems using the GLUE methodology.” J. Hydrol., 249(1–4), 11–29.
Choi, Y. S., Choi, C. K., Kim, H. S., Kim, K. T., and Kim, S. (2014). “Multi-site calibration using a grid-based event rainfall-runoff model: A case study of the upstream areas of the Nakdong River basin in Korea.” Hydrol. Process., 29(9), 2089–2099.
Cosgrove, B., Reed, S., Ding, F., Zhang, Y., Cui, Z., and Zhang, Z. (2009). “Flash flood forecasting for ungauged locations with NEXRAD precipitation data, threshold frequencies, and a distributed hydrologic model.” Proc.,World Environmental and Water Resources Congress, ASCE, Reston, VA, 1–10.
Daly, C., et al. (2008). “Physiographically sensitive mapping of climatological temperature and precipitation across the conterminous United States.” Int. J. Climatol., 28(15), 2031–2064.
Demaria, E. M., Nijssen, B., and Wagener, T. (2007). “Monte Carlo sensitivity analysis of land surface parameters using the variable infiltration capacity model.” J. Geophys. Res.: Atmos., 112(D11), D11113.
Duan, Q., Sorooshian, S., and Gupta, V. (1992). “Effective and efficient global optimization for conceptual rainfall-runoff models.” Water Resour. Res., 28(4), 1015–1031.
Duan, Q., Sorooshian, S., and Gupta, V. K. (1994). “Optimal use of the SCE-UA global optimization method for calibrating watershed models.” J. Hydrol., 158(3–4), 265–284.
Duan, Q. Y., Gupta, V. K., and Sorooshian, S. (1993). “Shuffled complex evolution approach for effective and efficient global minimization.” J. Optim. Theory Appl., 76(3), 501–521.
Famiglietti, J. S., and Rodell, M. (2013). “Environmental science. Water in the balance.” Science, 340(6138), 1300–1301.
Ferguson, C. R., Wood, E. F., and Vinukollu, R. K. (2012). “A global intercomparison of modeled and observed land-atmosphere coupling.” J. Hydrometeorol., 13(3), 749–784.
Formetta, G., Antonello, A., Franceschi, S., David, O., and Rigon, R. (2014). “Hydrological modelling with components: A GIS-based open-source framework.” Environ. Model. Software, 55, 190–200.
Franchini, M., and Pacciani, M. (1991). “Comparative analysis of several conceptual rainfall-runoff models.” J. Hydrol., 122(1–4), 161–219.
Furusho, C., Chancibault, K., and Andrieu, H. (2013). “Adapting the coupled hydrological model ISBA-TOPMODEL to the long-term hydrological cycles of suburban rivers: Evaluation and sensitivity analysis.” J. Hydrol., 485, 139–147.
Guo, J., Zhou, J. Z., Lu, J. Z., Zou, Q., Zhang, H. J., and Bi, S. (2014). “Multi-objective optimization of empirical hydrological model for streamflow prediction.” J. Hydrol., 511, 242–253.
Khakbaz, B., Imam, B., Hsu, K., and Sorooshian, S. (2012). “From lumped to distributed via semi-distributed: Calibration strategies for semi-distributed hydrologic models.” J. Hydrol., 418–419, 61–77.
Li, H., et al. (2013). “A physically based runoff routing model for land surface and earth system models.” J. Hydrometeorol., 14(3), 808–828.
Liang, X., Lettenmaier, D. P., Wood, E. F., and Burges, S. J. (1994). “A simple hydrologically based model of land surface water and energy fluxes for general circulation models.” J. Geophys. Res., 99(D7), 14415–14428.
Liang, X., Wood, E. F., and Lettenmaier, D. P. (1996). “Surface soil moisture parameterization of the VIC-2L model: Evaluation and modification.” Global Planet. Change, 13(1–4), 195–206.
Maurer, E. P., Wood, A. W., Adam, J. C., Lettenmaier, D. P., and Nijssen, B. (2002). “A long-term hydrologically based dataset of land surface fluxes and states for the conterminous United States.” J. Clim., 15(22), 3237–3251.
Mitchell, K. E., et al. (2004). “The multi-institution North American land data assimilation system (NLDAS): Utilizing multiple GCIP products and partners in a continental distributed hydrological modeling system.” J. Geophys. Res.: Atmos., 109, D07S90.
Moriasi, D. N., Arnold, J. G., Liew, M. W. V., Bingner, R. L., Harmel, R. D., and Veith, T. L. (2007). “Model evaluation guidelines for systematic quantification of accuracy in watershed simulations.” ASABE, 50(3), 885–900.
Nash, J. E., and Sutcliffe, J. V. (1970). “River flow forecasting through conceptual models. I: A discussion of principles.” J. Hydrol., 10(3), 282–290.
Nijssen, B., O’Donnell, G. M., Lettenmaier, D. P., Lohmann, D., and Wood, E. F. (2001). “Predicting the discharge of global rivers.” J. Clim., 14(15), 3307–3323.
Park, C., Lee, J., and Koo, M.-H. (2013). “Development of a fully-distributed daily hydrologic feedback model addressing vegetation, land cover, and soil water dynamics (VELAS).” J. Hydrol., 493, 43–56.
Ricard, S., Bourdillon, R., Roussel, D., and Turcotte, R. (2013). “Global calibration of distributed hydrological models for large-scale applications.” J. Hydrol. Eng., 719–721.
Rodell, M., et al. (2004). “The global land data assimilation system.” Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 85(3), 381–394.
Sharif, H., Sparks, L., Hassan, A., Zeitler, J., and Xie, H. (2010). “Application of a distributed hydrologic model to the November 17, 2004, flood of Bull Creek watershed, Austin, Texas.” J. Hydrol. Eng., 651–657.
Smith, M. B., et al. (2012). “The distributed model intercomparison project–Phase 2: Motivation and design of the Oklahoma experiments.” J. Hydrol., 418–419, 3–16.
Sorooshian, S., and Gupta, V. K. (1983). “Automatic calibration of conceptual rainfall-runoff models: The question of parameter observability and uniqueness.” Water Resour. Res., 19(1), 260–268.
Todini, E. (1996). “The ARNO rainfall-runoff model.” J. Hydrol., 175(1–4), 339–382.
Wood, E. F., Lettenmaier, D. P., and Zartarian, V. G. (1992). “A land-surface hydrology parameterization with subgrid variability for general circulation models.” J. Geophys. Res.: Atmos., 97(D3), 2717–2728.
Wu, H., Kimball, J. S., Mantua, N., and Stanford, J. (2011). “Automated upscaling of river networks for macroscale hydrological modeling.” Water Resour. Res., 47(3), W03517.
Xia, Y., et al. (2012). “Continental-scale water and energy flux analysis and validation for North American land data assimilation system project phase 2 (NLDAS-2). II. Validation of model-simulated streamflow.” J. Geophys. Res.: Atmos., 117(D3), D03110.
Xue, X., et al. (2013). “Statistical and hydrological evaluation of TRMM-based multi-satellite precipitation analysis over the Wangchu Basin of Bhutan: Are the latest satellite precipitation products 3B42V7 ready for use in ungauged basins?” J. Hydrol., 499, 91–99.
Xue, X. W. (2010). “Study of karstic watershed hydrological model and parameters regionalisation in Southwest China.” College of Hydrology and Water Resources, Hohai Univ., Nanjing, 122.
Yao, C., Li, Z. J., Bao, H. J., and Yu, Z. B. (2009). “Application of a developed grid-Xinanjiang model to Chinese watersheds for flood forecasting purpose.” J. Hydrol. Eng., 923–934.
Yao, C., Li, Z. J., Yu, Z. B., and Zhang, K. (2012). “A priori parameter estimates for a distributed, grid-based Xinanjiang model using geographically based information.” J. Hydrol., 468, 47–62.
Yong, B., et al. (2010). “Hydrologic evaluation of multisatellite precipitation analysis standard precipitation products in basins beyond its inclined latitude band: A case study in Laohahe Basin, China.” Water Resour. Res., 46(7), W07542.
Yong, B., et al. (2014). “Intercomparison of the version-6 and Version-7 TMPA precipitation products over high and low latitudes basins with independent gauge networks: Is the newer version better in both real-time and post-real-time analysis for water resources and hydrologic extremes?” J. Hydrol., 508, 77–87.
Zak, S. K., and Beven, K. J. (1999). “Equifinality, sensitivity and predictive uncertainty in the estimation of critical loads.” Sci. Total Environ., 236(1–3), 191–214.
Zhang, X. J., Tang, Q. H., Pan, M., and Tang, Y. (2014). “A long-term land surface hydrologic fluxes and states dataset for China.” J. Hydrometeorol., 15(5), 2067–2084.
Zhang, Y., Zhang, Z., Reed, S., and Koren, V. (2011). “An enhanced and automated approach for deriving a priori SAC-SMA parameters from the soil survey geographic database.” Comput. Geosci., 37(2), 219–231.
Zhang, Z., et al. (2012). “SAC-SMA a priori parameter differences and their impact on distributed hydrologic model simulations.” J. Hydrol., 420–421, 216–227.
Zhijia, L., Penglei, X., and Jiahui, T. (2013). “Study of the Xinanjiang model parameter calibration.” J. Hydrol. Eng., 1513–1521.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Hydrologic Engineering
Volume 21 • Issue 2 • February 2016
Copyright
© 2015 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: Dec 23, 2014
Accepted: Jun 26, 2015
Published online: Aug 17, 2015
Discussion open until: Jan 17, 2016
Published in print: Feb 1, 2016
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.