Hydrological process representation at the meso-scale: the potential of a distributed, conceptual catchment model
Introduction
The satisfactory modelling of hydrological processes in meso-scale basins (approximately 101–103 km2; Blöschl, 1996) is essential for optimal protection and management of water resources at this scale. If the aim of a modelling study is to reproduce only the daily runoff dynamics, a simple lumped model that can be calibrated to observed data is sufficient (e.g. Jakeman and Hornberger, 1993, Beven, 2001). However, if distributed calculations are required as part of an environmental modelling approach, a more complex and distributed model needs to be applied. In particular, if estimations (extrapolations) for the future under changed circumstances (i.e. altered land use, climate change) are sought, purely statistical or lumped approaches reach their limit and a model that contains process-realistic descriptions for all hydrological processes is required.
The processes dominating hydrological response differ at various spatial scales (e.g. Blöschl and Sivapalan, 1995, Blöschl, 1996). Even if many questions concerning scale issues remain unanswered, the following generalized scheme can be assumed for temperate zone catchments without large proportions of urban land use. (i) In micro-scale catchments (i.e. headwater catchments less than about 1 km2), response to rainfall is dominated mainly by the runoff generation processes at the hillslopes and near stream areas (e.g. Anderson and Burt, 1990, McDonnell, 1990, Montgomery et al., 1997). All processes that define the lateral movement of water on top of the soil, or within the unsaturated and saturated zones are the first-order controls. Thus, soil properties and land use play key roles. Finally, the spatial distribution of rainfall can be assumed to be much more uniform than in larger basins. (ii) In meso-scale basins, processes from smaller scales combine in a complex way to produce an integrated response. Identifying basin wide areas with the same dominating runoff generation processes is currently a major challenge in runoff generation process research (e.g. Peschke et al., 1999, Scherrer and Naef, 2003, Uhlenbrook, 2004). Channel processes (i.e. runoff routing, groundwater–surface water interactions) gain increasing importance with increasing catchment area at this scale. (iii) At the macro-scale (basins larger than 1000(0) km2), the spatial and temporal distribution of rainfall or snow melt and the routing of runoff are dominant. Recently, Bárdossy et al. (2002) showed the marginal influence of different soil properties or land use covers (i.e. increasing urbanization) on flood runoff of larger events in the river Rhine.
In summary, the interesting challenge of working at the meso-scale as an intermediate scale is three-fold. First, the distributed runoff generation processes need to be understood and captured by the chosen model. Second, the spatial and temporal variability of atmospheric forces and runoff concentration is significant and needs to be included in the model. Third, as this scale is crucial for water management issues, addressing several societal demands, it requires particular attention.
To capture the hydrological processes at the meso-scale, different models with various ranges of complexity were suggested (Singh, 1995). On one hand, increased computer capabilities have made possible the development and application of distributed and largely physically based models that work at a highly detailed spatial and temporal resolution (e.g. MIKE-SHE, Refsgaard and Storm, 1996; KINEROS, Smith et al., 1995). However, the enormous data requirements often prevent the extensive use of these models, particularly in basins larger than experimental headwaters. In addition, further limitations of these models are obvious, e.g. the application of small-scale physical equations derived in laboratories to larger heterogeneous areas, or the sub-grid variability (for detailed discussion see Beven, 1996, Beven, 2001). On the other hand, conceptual rainfall runoff models (e.g. TOPMODEL, Beven and Kirkby, 1979; HBV, Bergström, 1992) are less complex and the required input data are available for most applications. Nevertheless, the model parameters are often not physically based or clearly related to catchment properties and an equifinality problem (different models or parameter sets reach equally good simulation results) exists (e.g. Beven and Binley, 1992). This makes model application in ungauged basins difficult. In addition, a high degree of model structure uncertainty exists (e.g. Grayson et al., 1992, Seibert, 1999), as the structure should be consistent with the perceptual (conceptual) model of the investigated basin. The perceptual model describes the ‘basin functioning’ and is based on experimental investigations. Of course, this could be different for every basin, thus the application of a standard model and fitting by parameter calibration might lead to models that ‘… are working right, but for the wrong reasons’ (Klemes, 1986). Other sources of model uncertainty, such as the error of input data and its spatial regionalization to basin scale as well as the lack of understanding of the dominant processes and their mathematical descriptions are discussed in further detail by Beven (2001).
Because of these uncertainties it is clear that calibrating model parameters to produce a close fit between measured and simulated runoff is not a rigorous enough test of the model, as it does not guarantee accurate representation of internal hydrological processes. This highlights the need for additional data to evaluate model performance (e.g. Kuczera and Mroczkowski, 1998). This additional data can be, for instance, hydrochemical data (Mroczkowski et al., 1997), groundwater levels (Lamb et al., 1998, Seibert, 1999), environmental isotopes sampled during events (Seibert and McDonnell, 2004), or sampled continuously (Uhlenbrook and Leibundgut, 2002), and the distribution of saturated areas (Ambroise et al., 1995, Franks et al., 1998, Güntner et al., 1999a).
The objectives of this paper are, first, to introduce a modelling approach able to translate runoff generation process understanding into a catchment model for the meso-scale. The second is to model continuously all dominating hydrological processes (not only event based), distributed (50×50 m2) on an hourly resolution using only minimal calibration. Third, this paper seeks to use information in addition to total basin discharge for analysing the model performance (multiple-response validation). Therefore, runoff data from a sub-basin is applied to test the model's ability to predict space–time variability of stream flow. In addition, the concentration of a natural tracer (i.e. dissolved silica) is used to check the temporally variable composition of runoff components. Finally, although this model is site-specific in its current form, the applicability of the modelling approach to other catchments based on knowledge of local processes is discussed.
Section snippets
Study site
The study was performed in the meso-scale Brugga basin (40 km2) and the sub-basin St. Wilhelmer Talbach (15.4 km2; see Fig. 1), located in the southern Black Forest in southwest Germany. The test site is mountainous with elevations ranging from 438 to 1493 m a.m.s.l. and a nival runoff regime. The mean annual precipitation amounts to approximately 1750 mm generating a mean annual discharge of approximately 1220 mm. The gneiss bedrock is covered by soils, debris, and drift of varying depths
Experimental process investigations
Detailed experimental investigations were carried out using artificial and naturally occurring tracers. This helped to identify runoff sources and flow pathways, quantify runoff components, and date the age of different water compartments (details are given in Uhlenbrook et al., 2002). It was shown that surface runoff is generated on sealed or saturated areas. In addition, fast runoff components are generated on steep highly permeable slopes covered by boulder fields. Sub-surface storm flow
General
The TACD (tracer aided catchment model, distributed) model is a conceptual rainfall runoff model with a modular structure. It can be applied on an hourly basis, and is fully distributed, i.e. using 50×50 m2 grid cells as spatial discretization. The water is routed between the cells applying the single-flow direction algorithm (D8), which is suitable for the mountainous basin where the water flow direction is dominated by the steepest gradient (Güntner et al., 1999b). It is coded within the
Modelling results
The model was calibrated for the period 01.08.95–31.07.96, and the period 01.08.96–31.07.99 was used for validation (split-sample test as suggested, e.g. by Klemes, 1986). The model was initialized for 3 months to have realistic storage volumes at the beginning of the calibration period. Some parameters were estimated based on basin characteristics and literature values. These parameters were not further optimised during the model calibration. Other model parameters had to be determined by
Discussion
Using tracer and discharge data from sub-basins and a neighbouring basin, Uhlenbrook and Leibundgut (2002) showed that the previous version of TAC not only computed the total runoff well, but also correctly modelled the contribution of different runoff components. However, flood generation was not modelled in a process-realistic way due to the daily time step, because the runoff generation dynamics and runoff routing were not represented adequately; i.e. the temporal resolution of the model did
Conclusions and outlook
The TACD model is shown to be suitable for representing hydrological processes at the meso-scale Brugga basin. It reaches very good statistical measures during the calibration period by needing only a limited number of calibration runs since many parameters could be estimated from field data or previous investigations. Additionally, the model is proved on different levels, and good model performance is demonstrated for a sub-basin and an independent validation period without re-calibration. The
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the German Research Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, DFG, Bonn, Germany) for financial support, Grant no. Le 698/12-1.
References (64)
- et al.
Modelling streamwater chemistry as a mixture of soilwater end-members—a step towards second-generation acidification models
J. Hydrol.
(1990) - et al.
Application of a catchment water quality model for assessment and prediction of nitrogen budgets
Phys. Chem. Earth
(2001) - et al.
Use of spatially distributed water table observations to constrain uncertainty in a rainfall-runoff model
Adv. Water Resour.
(1998) - et al.
Towards developing a new short-term model for the Birkenes catchment—lessons learned
J. Hydrol.
(1990) - et al.
River flow forecasting through conceptual models, 1. A discussion of principles
J. Hydrol.
(1970) - et al.
Multicriterion validation of a semidistributed conceptual model of the water cycle in the Fecht Catchment (Vosges Massif, France)
Water Resour. Res.
(1995) - et al.
Process Studies in Hillslope Hydrology
(1990) - Bárdossy A., Bronstert A., Buiteveld H., Busch, N., Disse, M., Engel, H., Fritsch, U., Hundecha, Y., Lammersen, R.,...
Roughness Characteristics of Natural Channels. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1849
(1967)- Bergström, S., 1992. The HBV model—its structure and applications. SMHI, RH, 4, Norrköping,...
Integrated modelling of runoff, alkalinity and pH on a daily base
Nord. Hydrol.
A discussion of distributed hydrological modelling
Rainfall-Runoff Modelling. The Primer
The future of distributed models: model calibration and uncertainty prediction
Hydrol. Process.
A physically based, variable contributing area model of basin hydrology
Hydrol. Sci. Bull.
Scale and scaling in hydrology
Wiener Mitteilungen, Wasser–Abwasser–Gewässer, 132
Scale issues in hydrological modelling: a review
Hydrol. Process.
Applied hydrology
McGRaw-Hill Serious in Water Resources and Environmental Engineering
On constraining the predictions of a distributed model: the incorporation of fuzzy estimates of saturated areas into the calibration process
Water Resour. Res.
Physically based hydrologic modeling, 2. Is the concept realistic?
Water Resour. Res.
Multi-criterial validation of TOPMODEL in a mountainous catchment
Hydrol. Process.
Hydrograph separation in a mountainous catchment—combining hydrochemical and isotopic tracers
Hydrol. Process.
A comparison of chemical and isotopic hydrograph separation
Water Resour. Res.
How much complexity is warranted in a rainfall-runoff model
Water Resour. Res.
The value of environmental modelling languages for building distributed hydrological models
Hydrol. Process.
The PCRaster software and course materials for teaching numerical modelling in the environmental sciences
Trans. GIS
Cited by (144)
Quantitative analysis of recharge sources of different runoff types in the source region of Three River
2023, Journal of HydrologyInversion and forward estimation with process-based models: An investigation into cost functions, uncertainty-based weights and model-data fusion
2023, Environmental Modelling and SoftwareState updating in a distributed hydrological model by ensemble Kalman filtering with error estimation
2023, Journal of HydrologyNested hydrological modeling for flood prediction using CMIP6 inputs around Lake Tana, Ethiopia
2023, Journal of Hydrology: Regional StudiesQuantifying streamflow sources to improve water allocation management in a catchment undergoing agricultural intensification
2022, Physics and Chemistry of the Earth