Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Modelling hydrologic responses in a small fores...
View graph of relations

Modelling hydrologic responses in a small forested catchment (Panola Mountain, Georgia, USA): a comparison of the original and a new dynamic TOPMODEL.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Published

Standard

Modelling hydrologic responses in a small forested catchment (Panola Mountain, Georgia, USA): a comparison of the original and a new dynamic TOPMODEL. / Peters, Norman E.; Freer, James E.; Beven, Keith J.
In: Hydrological Processes, Vol. 17, No. 2, 15.02.2003, p. 345-362.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Author

Bibtex

@article{28a0c855bdf94fd6ab8ed78935865070,
title = "Modelling hydrologic responses in a small forested catchment (Panola Mountain, Georgia, USA): a comparison of the original and a new dynamic TOPMODEL.",
abstract = "Preliminary modelling results for a new version of the rainfall-runoff model TOPMODEL, dynamic TOPMODEL, are compared with those of the original TOPMODEL formulation for predicting streamflow at the Panola Mountain Research Watershed, Georgia. Dynamic TOPMODEL uses a kinematic wave routing of subsurface flow, which allows for dynamically variable upslope contributing areas, while retaining the concept of hydrological similarity to increase computational efficiency. Model performance in predicting discharge was assessed for the original TOPMODEL and for one landscape unit (LU) and three LU versions of the dynamic TOPMODEL (a bare rock area, hillslope with regolith <1 m, and a riparian zone with regolith 5 m). All simulations used a 30 min time step for each of three water years. Each 1-LU model underpredicted the peak streamflow, and generally overpredicted recession streamflow during wet periods and underpredicted during dry periods. The difference between predicted recession streamflow generally was less for the dynamic TOPMODEL and smallest for the 3-LU model. Bayesian combination of results for different water years within the GLUE methodology left no behavioural original or 1-LU dynamic models and only 168 (of 96 000 sample parameter sets) for the 3-LU model. The efficiency for the streamflow prediction of the best 3-LU model was 0·83 for an individual year, but the results suggest that further improvements could be made.",
keywords = "distributed hydrological model • streamflow generation • GLUE • uncertainty • transmissivity",
author = "Peters, {Norman E.} and Freer, {James E.} and Beven, {Keith J.}",
year = "2003",
month = feb,
day = "15",
doi = "10.1002/hyp.1128",
language = "English",
volume = "17",
pages = "345--362",
journal = "Hydrological Processes",
issn = "0885-6087",
publisher = "John Wiley and Sons Ltd",
number = "2",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Modelling hydrologic responses in a small forested catchment (Panola Mountain, Georgia, USA): a comparison of the original and a new dynamic TOPMODEL.

AU - Peters, Norman E.

AU - Freer, James E.

AU - Beven, Keith J.

PY - 2003/2/15

Y1 - 2003/2/15

N2 - Preliminary modelling results for a new version of the rainfall-runoff model TOPMODEL, dynamic TOPMODEL, are compared with those of the original TOPMODEL formulation for predicting streamflow at the Panola Mountain Research Watershed, Georgia. Dynamic TOPMODEL uses a kinematic wave routing of subsurface flow, which allows for dynamically variable upslope contributing areas, while retaining the concept of hydrological similarity to increase computational efficiency. Model performance in predicting discharge was assessed for the original TOPMODEL and for one landscape unit (LU) and three LU versions of the dynamic TOPMODEL (a bare rock area, hillslope with regolith <1 m, and a riparian zone with regolith 5 m). All simulations used a 30 min time step for each of three water years. Each 1-LU model underpredicted the peak streamflow, and generally overpredicted recession streamflow during wet periods and underpredicted during dry periods. The difference between predicted recession streamflow generally was less for the dynamic TOPMODEL and smallest for the 3-LU model. Bayesian combination of results for different water years within the GLUE methodology left no behavioural original or 1-LU dynamic models and only 168 (of 96 000 sample parameter sets) for the 3-LU model. The efficiency for the streamflow prediction of the best 3-LU model was 0·83 for an individual year, but the results suggest that further improvements could be made.

AB - Preliminary modelling results for a new version of the rainfall-runoff model TOPMODEL, dynamic TOPMODEL, are compared with those of the original TOPMODEL formulation for predicting streamflow at the Panola Mountain Research Watershed, Georgia. Dynamic TOPMODEL uses a kinematic wave routing of subsurface flow, which allows for dynamically variable upslope contributing areas, while retaining the concept of hydrological similarity to increase computational efficiency. Model performance in predicting discharge was assessed for the original TOPMODEL and for one landscape unit (LU) and three LU versions of the dynamic TOPMODEL (a bare rock area, hillslope with regolith <1 m, and a riparian zone with regolith 5 m). All simulations used a 30 min time step for each of three water years. Each 1-LU model underpredicted the peak streamflow, and generally overpredicted recession streamflow during wet periods and underpredicted during dry periods. The difference between predicted recession streamflow generally was less for the dynamic TOPMODEL and smallest for the 3-LU model. Bayesian combination of results for different water years within the GLUE methodology left no behavioural original or 1-LU dynamic models and only 168 (of 96 000 sample parameter sets) for the 3-LU model. The efficiency for the streamflow prediction of the best 3-LU model was 0·83 for an individual year, but the results suggest that further improvements could be made.

KW - distributed hydrological model • streamflow generation • GLUE • uncertainty • transmissivity

U2 - 10.1002/hyp.1128

DO - 10.1002/hyp.1128

M3 - Journal article

VL - 17

SP - 345

EP - 362

JO - Hydrological Processes

JF - Hydrological Processes

SN - 0885-6087

IS - 2

ER -