An assessment of a conceptual rainfall‐runoff model's ability to represent the dynamics of small hypothetical catchments: 2. Hydrologic responses for normal and extreme rainfall

An assessment of a conceptual rainfall‐runoff model's ability to represent the dynamics of... Results from five numerical experiments to test a conceptual rainfall‐runoff model (the soil moisture accounting component, SMA, used by the U.S. National Weather Service), comprising combinations of three sets of input data (hourly precipitation and evapotranspiration data) and four hypothetical two‐layered small catchments (areas ≤0.2 km2, saturated hydraulic conductivity from 0.02 to 0.2 m/h, soil depth from 0.8 to 1.6 m, hillslope length from 100 to 250 m, and slope from 0.04 to 0.10), representing a wide range of flow mechanisms, are presented. The calibrated SMA model could simulate flow volumes corresponding to broad‐scale flow mechanisms but generally performed poorly during dry to wet catchment transitions. SMA was found to be unreliable in forecasting extreme floods, especially under dry antecedent moisture conditions, and for catchments where calibration data were comprised primarily of base flow. For each case, the sum of the SMA conceptual storages differed from the maximum physical water storage capacity of the hypothetical small catchment. The calibrated SMA model parameters were climate dependent indicating that a calibrated SMA model should be used with caution when predicting hydrologic response to a changed climate. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Water Resources Research Wiley

An assessment of a conceptual rainfall‐runoff model's ability to represent the dynamics of small hypothetical catchments: 2. Hydrologic responses for normal and extreme rainfall

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wiley/an-assessment-of-a-conceptual-rainfall-runoff-model-s-ability-to-UVvoIhZMH5
Publisher
Wiley
Copyright
Copyright © 1990 by the American Geophysical Union.
ISSN
0043-1397
eISSN
1944-7973
D.O.I.
10.1029/WR026i007p01605
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Results from five numerical experiments to test a conceptual rainfall‐runoff model (the soil moisture accounting component, SMA, used by the U.S. National Weather Service), comprising combinations of three sets of input data (hourly precipitation and evapotranspiration data) and four hypothetical two‐layered small catchments (areas ≤0.2 km2, saturated hydraulic conductivity from 0.02 to 0.2 m/h, soil depth from 0.8 to 1.6 m, hillslope length from 100 to 250 m, and slope from 0.04 to 0.10), representing a wide range of flow mechanisms, are presented. The calibrated SMA model could simulate flow volumes corresponding to broad‐scale flow mechanisms but generally performed poorly during dry to wet catchment transitions. SMA was found to be unreliable in forecasting extreme floods, especially under dry antecedent moisture conditions, and for catchments where calibration data were comprised primarily of base flow. For each case, the sum of the SMA conceptual storages differed from the maximum physical water storage capacity of the hypothetical small catchment. The calibrated SMA model parameters were climate dependent indicating that a calibrated SMA model should be used with caution when predicting hydrologic response to a changed climate.

Journal

Water Resources ResearchWiley

Published: Jul 1, 1990

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create folders to
organize your research

Export folders, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off