Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

You seem to have javascript disabled. Please note that many of the page functionalities won't work as expected without javascript enabled.
 
 
Sign in to use this feature.

Years

Between: -

Subjects

remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline

Journals

Article Types

Countries / Regions

Search Results (2)

Search Parameters:
Keywords = SHUD model

Order results
Result details
Results per page
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
31 pages, 18264 KiB  
Article
An Investigation into the Applicability of the SHUD Model for Streamflow Simulation Based on CMFD Meteorological Data in the Yellow River Source Region
by Tingwei Bu, Chan Wang, Hao Chen, Xianhong Meng, Zhaoguo Li, Yaling Chen, Danrui Sheng and Chen Zhao
Water 2024, 16(24), 3583; https://doi.org/10.3390/w16243583 (registering DOI) - 12 Dec 2024
Viewed by 253
Abstract
The simulator for hydrological unstructured domains (SHUD) is a cutting-edge, distributed hydrological model based on the finite volume method, representing the next generation of coupled surface–subsurface hydrological simulations. Its applicability in high-altitude, cold regions covered by snow and permafrost, such as the Yellow [...] Read more.
The simulator for hydrological unstructured domains (SHUD) is a cutting-edge, distributed hydrological model based on the finite volume method, representing the next generation of coupled surface–subsurface hydrological simulations. Its applicability in high-altitude, cold regions covered by snow and permafrost, such as the Yellow River source region, necessitates rigorous validation. This study employed the China Meteorological Forcing Dataset (CMFD) to simulate streamflow in the Yellow River source region from 2006 to 2018, comprehensively assessing the suitability of the SHUD model in this area. The SHUD model excels in simulating monthly streamflow in the Yellow River source region, while its performance at the daily scale is comparable to existing models. It demonstrated significantly better performance in the warm season compared to the cold season, particularly in the middle and lower reaches of the region. Distinct seasonal and regional differences were observed in simulation performance across sub-basins. However, the model encounters limitations when simulating the extensively distributed permafrost areas in the upstream region, primarily due to oversimplification of the permafrost thawing and freezing processes, which points the direction for future model improvements. Additionally, the model’s shortcomings in accurately simulating peak streamflow are closely related to uncertainties in calibration strategies and meteorological data inputs. Despite these limitations, the calibrated SHUD model meets the hydrological simulation needs of the Yellow River Source Region across various temporal scales, providing significant scientific reference for hydrological simulation and streamflow prediction in cold regions with snow and permafrost. Full article
(This article belongs to the Section Hydrology)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Distribution of the Yellow River source region, river system, and the geographic locations of observation stations.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>The unstructured SHUD coarse/fine mesh for the Yellow River source region generated by the rSHUD tool.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Flow duration curves (<b>a</b>), scatter plot (<b>b</b>), and hydrograph processes (<b>c</b>) of daily observed and simulated streamflow at the Tangnaihai hydrological Station.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Flow duration curves (<b>a</b>), scatter plot (<b>b</b>) and hydrograph processes (<b>c</b>) of monthly observed and simulated streamflow at the Tangnaihai hydrological Station.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Hydrographs and scatter plots of daily observed and simulated streamflow at the Tangnaihai hydrological station for 2008 (<b>a</b>,<b>b</b>) and 2014 (<b>c</b>,<b>d</b>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Monthly scale (<b>a</b>) and annual scale (<b>b</b>) temperature, precipitation, and observed and simulated streamflow at Tangnaihai hydrological station from 2006 to 2018, with temperature and precipitation as the annual averages from CMFD.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Hydrographs (<b>a</b>,<b>c</b>,<b>e</b>) and scatter plots (<b>b</b>,<b>d</b>,<b>f</b>) of daily observed and simulated streamflow at hydrological stations in the Yellow River source region: (<b>a</b>,<b>b</b>) Jimai station, (<b>c</b>,<b>d</b>) Maqu station, and (<b>e</b>,<b>f</b>) Jungong station.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Monthly average values of observed and simulated streamflow (<b>a</b>) and error percentage for simulated streamflow during warm and cold seasons (<b>b</b>) at four hydrologic stations in the Yellow River source region.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Comparison of precipitation on daily (<b>a</b>), monthly (<b>b</b>), and annual (<b>c</b>) scales between meteorological stations and the CMFD in the Yellow River source region.</p>
Full article ">
18 pages, 7135 KiB  
Article
Comprehensive Hydrological Analysis of the Buha River Watershed with High-Resolution SHUD Modeling
by Yan Chang, Xiaodong Li, Lele Shu and Haijuan Ji
Water 2024, 16(14), 2015; https://doi.org/10.3390/w16142015 - 16 Jul 2024
Viewed by 880
Abstract
This study utilizes the Simulator of Hydrologic Unstructured Domains (SHUD) model and the China Meteorological Forces Dataset (CMFD) to investigate the hydrological dynamics of the Buha River watershed, a critical tributary of Qinghai Lake, from 1979 to 2018. By integrating high-resolution terrestrial and [...] Read more.
This study utilizes the Simulator of Hydrologic Unstructured Domains (SHUD) model and the China Meteorological Forces Dataset (CMFD) to investigate the hydrological dynamics of the Buha River watershed, a critical tributary of Qinghai Lake, from 1979 to 2018. By integrating high-resolution terrestrial and meteorological data, the SHUD model simulates streamflow variations and other hydrological characteristics, providing valuable insights into the region’s water balance and runoff processes. Key findings reveal a consistent upward trend in precipitation and temperature over the past four decades, despite minor deviations in daily precipitation intensity and relative humidity data. The SHUD model demonstrates high accuracy on a monthly scale, with Nash–Sutcliffe Efficiency (NSE) values of 0.72 for the calibration phase and 0.61 for the validation phase. The corresponding Kling–Gupta Efficiency (KGE) values are 0.73 and 0.49, respectively, underscoring the model’s applicability for hydrological forecasting and water resource management. Notably, the annual runoff ratios for the Buha River fluctuate annually between 0.11 and 0.21, with significant changes around 2007 correlating with a shift in Qinghai Lake’s water levels. The analysis of water balance indicates a net leakage over long-term periods, with spatial alterations in leakage and replenishment along the river. Furthermore, snow accumulation, which increases with altitude, significantly contributes to streamflow during the melting season. Despite the Buha River basin’s importance, research on its hydrology remains limited due to data scarcity and minimal human activity. This study enhances the understanding of the Buha River’s hydrological processes and highlights the necessity for improved dataset accuracy and model parameter optimization in future research. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Research on Watershed Ecology, Hydrology and Climate)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Basic spatial information of Qinghai Lake and Buha River watershed.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>The unstructured SHUD mesh for Buha River watershed generated by the rSHUD tool.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Comparison of meteorological data from the Gangcha meteorological station (<span class="html-italic">x</span>-axis) and CMFD grid data (<span class="html-italic">y</span>-axis) on daily, monthly, and annual scales, with the gray shadows representing 95% confidence intervals.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Historical trends in average annual precipitation and temperature in the Buha River watershed based on CMFD data, with the gray shadows representing 95% confidence intervals.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Comparison of the annual precipitation time distribution from CMFD, with calculated runoff ratios using observed streamflow data versus precipitation data from both CMFD and Tianjun meteorological station.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>A demonstration of the SHUD model’s performance during the calibration period (1993–2002, shadowed period) and validation period (2003–2011) in simulating the Buha River streamflow: (<b>a</b>) daily scale; (<b>b</b>) monthly scale.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>The distribution of leaks and replenishment areas in the Buha River network. (<b>a</b>) Baseflow rate per unit length of all river sections; (<b>b</b>) Groundwater depth and the segments of river leakage/replenishment.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Seasonal characteristics of the water balance components in the Buha River watershed.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Map of the annual average evapotranspiration distribution throughout the watershed.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Snow water equivalent (SWE) accumulation intensifies with increased elevation (<b>b</b>) with the gray shadow behind the regression line representing 99% confidence intervals, in addition to the possibility distribution function (PDF) of the elevation (<b>a</b>) and the SWE (<b>c</b>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Multi-annual average of the annual maximum snow water equivalent from 1979 to 2018.</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>Depicts the monthly (<b>a</b>) and annual (<b>b</b>) variations in the Buha River’s snowpack from 1979 to 2018, based on the output of the SHUD model.</p>
Full article ">
Back to TopTop