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
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline

Journals

remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline

Article Types

Countries / Regions

remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline

Search Results (2,611)

Search Parameters:
Keywords = hydrological simulation

Order results
Result details
Results per page
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
20 pages, 7128 KiB  
Article
Evaluating the Performance of Hydrological Models for Flood Discharge Simulation in the Wangchu River Basin, Bhutan
by Damudar Dahal and Toshiharu Kojima
Hydrology 2025, 12(3), 51; https://doi.org/10.3390/hydrology12030051 - 6 Mar 2025
Viewed by 123
Abstract
Flood has become a major hazard globally, and in Bhutan, with its steep terrain and erratic rainfall, it has caused significant economic damage in recent years. Given these challenges, there is a lack of accurate flood prediction and management strategies. In this study, [...] Read more.
Flood has become a major hazard globally, and in Bhutan, with its steep terrain and erratic rainfall, it has caused significant economic damage in recent years. Given these challenges, there is a lack of accurate flood prediction and management strategies. In this study, therefore, we evaluated three hydrological models—Integrated Flood Analysis System (IFAS), Hydrologic Engineering Centre Hydrologic Modeling System (HEC-HMS), and Group on Earth Observation Global Water Sustainability (GEOGloWS)—and identified the most suitable model for simulating flood events in the Wangchu River Basin in Bhutan. Furthermore, we examined the models’ performance in a large and a small basin using the Nash–Sutcliffe Efficiency (NSE), Percent Bias (PBIAS), and Peak Flow Error (PFE) metrics. Overall, the GEOGloWS model demonstrated the highest accuracy in simulating flood in the large basin, achieving NSE, PBIAS, and PFE values of 0.93, 3.21%, and 4.48%, respectively. In the small basin, the IFAS model showed strong performance with an NSE value of 0.84. The GEOGloWS model provides simulated discharge but needs to be bias corrected before use. The calibrated parameters can be used in the IFAS and HEC-HMS models in future studies to simulate floods in the Wangchu River Basin and adjacent basins with similar geographical characteristics. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Location of the study area (international boundary shapefiles were downloaded from: <a href="https://diva-gis.org/" target="_blank">https://diva-gis.org/</a>, accessed on 12 March 2024). The whole basin is considered to be the large basin and the area demarcated in blue is considered to be the small basin.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Schematic diagram of the research flow.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>(<b>a</b>) Sub-basins and stream network, (<b>b</b>) curve numbers, (<b>c</b>) soil classes, and (<b>d</b>) land use classes.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Validated metrics obtained from models.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Calibration and validation using IFAS, HEC-HMS, and GEOGloWS models: (<b>a</b>) calibration at Chimakoti, (<b>b</b>) validation at Chimakoti, (<b>c</b>) calibration at Lungtenphu, and (<b>d</b>) validation at Lungtenphu station.</p>
Full article ">
21 pages, 4280 KiB  
Article
Calculation and Analysis of the Distribution Characteristics of Groundwater Resources in the Middle Reaches of the Mudanjiang River Basin in China Based on SWAT Model and InVEST Model
by Feiyang Yan, Changlei Dai, Xiao Yang, Peixian Liu, Xiang Meng, Kehan Yang and Xu Yang
Appl. Sci. 2025, 15(5), 2671; https://doi.org/10.3390/app15052671 - 2 Mar 2025
Viewed by 220
Abstract
The Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Trade-Offs (InVEST) model with the distributed hydrological model Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) were implemented. The SWAT model quantifies and visualizes water production and groundwater reserves in the Mudanjiang River Basin, employing the groundwater runoff [...] Read more.
The Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Trade-Offs (InVEST) model with the distributed hydrological model Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) were implemented. The SWAT model quantifies and visualizes water production and groundwater reserves in the Mudanjiang River Basin, employing the groundwater runoff modulus method to calculate groundwater recharge in the basin. This study aims to assess the model’s applicability in cold basins and subsequently analyze groundwater distribution characteristics, water reserves, and the exploitable volume. It serves as a reference for the judicious allocation of groundwater resources and the preservation of the local aquatic ecosystem. The study indicates the following: (1) Utilizing the monthly runoff data from the Mudan River hydrologic station, SWAT simulation and calibration were conducted, yielding a determination coefficient (R2) of 0.75 and a Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency coefficient (NS) of 0.77, thereby satisfying fundamental scientific research criteria. The water yield predicted by the InVEST model aligns closely with the water resources bulletin of the research region. (2) The data from the water production module of the InVEST model indicate that the average annual water production during the research period was 6.725 billion m3, with an average annual water production depth of 148 mm. In 2018, characterized by ample water supply, the water output was at its peak, with a depth of 242 mm. In 2014, the water depth recorded was merely 16 mm. (3) Throughout the study period, the average annual flow of the Mudan River was 4.2 billion m3, whereas the groundwater reserve was 24.13 (108 m3·a−1). In 2013, the maximum groundwater reserve was 38.42 (108 m3·a−1), while the minimum reserve in 2014 was 2.36 (108 m3·a−1), suggesting that the region was predominantly experiencing sustainable exploitation. (4) The mean groundwater runoff modulus is 0.28 L/(s·km2), with a peak annual recharge of 15.4 (108 m3·a−1) in 2013 and a lowest recharge of just 3.2 (108 m3·a−1) in 2011. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Technologies and Methods for Exploitation of Geological Resources)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>The schematic diagrams depict the study area.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Lithologic classification map of the study area.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Sub-watershed division, elevation, soil type, and land use mapping of the study area.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Runoff rate determination and verification of the model.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Distribution maps of the groundwater reserves from 2010 to 2018 at a specific scale.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Groundwater permeability efficiency between 2010 and 2018.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Distribution of the water production at scale, 2010–2018.</p>
Full article ">
39 pages, 12565 KiB  
Article
Integrating Land Use/Land Cover and Climate Change Projections to Assess Future Hydrological Responses: A CMIP6-Based Multi-Scenario Approach in the Omo–Gibe River Basin, Ethiopia
by Paulos Lukas, Assefa M. Melesse and Tadesse Tujuba Kenea
Climate 2025, 13(3), 51; https://doi.org/10.3390/cli13030051 - 28 Feb 2025
Viewed by 313
Abstract
It is imperative to assess and comprehend the hydrological processes of the river basin in light of the potential effects of land use/land cover and climate changes. The study’s main objective was to evaluate hydrologic response of water balance components to the projected [...] Read more.
It is imperative to assess and comprehend the hydrological processes of the river basin in light of the potential effects of land use/land cover and climate changes. The study’s main objective was to evaluate hydrologic response of water balance components to the projected land use/land cover (LULC) and climate changes in the Omo–Gibe River Basin, Ethiopia. The study employed historical precipitation, maximum and minimum temperature data from meteorological stations, projected LULC change from module for land use simulation and evaluation (MOLUSCE) output, and climate change scenarios from coupled model intercomparison project phase 6 (CMIP6) global climate models (GCMs). Landsat thematic mapper (TM) (2007) enhanced thematic mapper plus (ETM+) (2016), and operational land imager (OLI) (2023) image data were utilized for LULC change analysis and used as input in MOLUSCE simulation to predict future LULC changes for 2047, 2073, and 2100. The predictive capacity of the model was evaluated using performance evaluation metrics such as Nash–Sutcliffe Efficiency (NSE), the coefficient of determination (R2), and percent bias (PBIAS). The bias correction and downscaling of CMIP6 GCMs was performed via CMhyd. According to the present study’s findings, rainfall will drop by up to 24% in the 2020s, 2050s, and 2080s while evapotranspiration will increase by 21%. The findings of this study indicate that in the 2020s, 2050s, and 2080s time periods, the average annual Tmax will increase by 5.1, 7.3, and 8.7%, respectively under the SSP126 scenario, by 5.2, 10.5, and 14.9%, respectively under the SSP245 scenario, by 4.7, 11.3, and 20.7%, respectively, under the SSP585 scenario while Tmin will increase by 8.7, 13.1, and 14.6%, respectively, under the SSP126 scenario, by 1.5, 18.2, and 27%, respectively, under the SSP245 scenario, and by 4.7, 30.7, and 48.2%, respectively, under the SSP585 scenario. Future changes in the annual average Tmax, Tmin, and precipitation could have a significant effect on surface and subsurface hydrology, reservoir sedimentation, hydroelectric power generation, and agricultural production in the OGRB. Considering the significant and long-term effects of climate and LULC changes on surface runoff, evapotranspiration, and groundwater recharge in the Omo–Gibe River Basin, the following recommendations are essential for efficient water resource management and ecological preservation. National, regional, and local governments, as well as non-governmental organizations, should develop and implement a robust water resources management plan, promote afforestation and reforestation programs, install high-quality hydrological and meteorological data collection mechanisms, and strengthen monitoring and early warning systems in the Omo–Gibe River Basin. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>The study area map comprises meteorological stations, streamflow gauging stations, and stream networks.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>The general flowchart of the study comprises data input, preprocessing and processing, and outputs.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Historical and projected LULC patterns of 2007, 2016, 2023, 2047, 2073, and 2100 in the Omo–Gibe River Basin.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>CMIP6 GCM selection procedure.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Mean annual maximum temperature for the baseline (1985–2014), SSP126, SSP245, and SSP585 scenarios (2023–2100) considering the 95% confidence level in the OGRB.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Mean annual minimum temperature for the baseline (1985–2014), SSP126, SSP245, and SSP585 scenarios (2023–2100) considering the 95% level of confidence in the OGRB.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6 Cont.
<p>Mean annual minimum temperature for the baseline (1985–2014), SSP126, SSP245, and SSP585 scenarios (2023–2100) considering the 95% level of confidence in the OGRB.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Anomalies of mean annual Tmax and Tmin for five CMIP6 models (<b>a</b>,<b>b</b>), and model ensemble mean for Tmax (<b>c</b>) and for Tmin (<b>d</b>) for the base historical period (1985–2014).</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Mean annual precipitation for the observed (1985–2022), SSP126, SSP245, and SSP585 scenarios (2023–2100) from five CMIP6 ensemble GCMs considering the 95% confidence level.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8 Cont.
<p>Mean annual precipitation for the observed (1985–2022), SSP126, SSP245, and SSP585 scenarios (2023–2100) from five CMIP6 ensemble GCMs considering the 95% confidence level.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8 Cont.
<p>Mean annual precipitation for the observed (1985–2022), SSP126, SSP245, and SSP585 scenarios (2023–2100) from five CMIP6 ensemble GCMs considering the 95% confidence level.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Mean annual precipitation anomalies of five CMIP6 models (<b>a</b>) and model ensemble mean (<b>b</b>) for the base historical period (1985–2014).</p>
Full article ">Figure 9 Cont.
<p>Mean annual precipitation anomalies of five CMIP6 models (<b>a</b>) and model ensemble mean (<b>b</b>) for the base historical period (1985–2014).</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Streamflow changes (<b>a</b>–<b>h</b>) in the observed and simulated data for the calibration (1995–2012) and validation periods (2013–2019).</p>
Full article ">Figure 10 Cont.
<p>Streamflow changes (<b>a</b>–<b>h</b>) in the observed and simulated data for the calibration (1995–2012) and validation periods (2013–2019).</p>
Full article ">Figure 10 Cont.
<p>Streamflow changes (<b>a</b>–<b>h</b>) in the observed and simulated data for the calibration (1995–2012) and validation periods (2013–2019).</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Effects of LULC changes on surface runoff during the 2020s (<b>left</b>), 2050s (<b>middle</b>), and 2080s (<b>right</b>) in the OGRB.</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>Effects of LULC changes on evapotranspiration during the 2020s (<b>left</b>), 2050s, and 2080s in the OGRB.</p>
Full article ">Figure 13
<p>Effects of LULC changes on groundwater recharge during the 2020s, 2050s, and 2080s in the OGRB.</p>
Full article ">Figure 14
<p>Effects of climate change on surface runoff (mm) in the 2020s, 2050s, and 2080s from five CMIP6 GCMs under SSP126, SSP245, and SSP585 in the OGRB.</p>
Full article ">Figure 15
<p>Effects of climate change on evapotranspiration (mm) in the 2020s, 2050s, and 2080s from five CMIP6 GCMs under SSP126, SSP245, and SSP585 in the OGRB.</p>
Full article ">Figure 16
<p>Effects of climate change on groundwater recharge (mm) in the 2020s, 2050s, and 2080s from five CMIP6 GCMs under SSP126, SSP245, and SSP585 in the OGRB.</p>
Full article ">Figure 17
<p>Effects of LULC and climate changes on surface runoff (mm) in the 2020s, 2050s, and 2080s from five CMIP6 GCMs under SSP126, SSP245, and SSP585 in the OGRB.</p>
Full article ">Figure 18
<p>Effects of LULC and climate changes on evapotranspiration (mm) in the 2020s, 2050s, and 2080s from five CMIP6 GCMs under SSP126, SSP245, and SSP585 in the OGRB.</p>
Full article ">Figure 19
<p>Effects of LULC and climate changes on groundwater recharge (mm) in the 2020s, 2050s, and 2080s from five CMIP6 GCMs under SSP126, SSP245, and SSP585 in the OGRB.</p>
Full article ">
24 pages, 13248 KiB  
Article
GIS-Based Flood Assessment Using Hydraulic Modeling and Open Source Data: An Example of Application
by Loredana Copăcean, Eugen Teodor Man, Luminiţa L. Cojocariu, Cosmin Alin Popescu, Clara-Beatrice Vîlceanu, Robert Beilicci, Alina Creţan, Mihai Valentin Herbei, Ovidiu Ştefan Cuzic and Sorin Herban
Appl. Sci. 2025, 15(5), 2520; https://doi.org/10.3390/app15052520 - 26 Feb 2025
Viewed by 241
Abstract
The study explores the impact of floods, phenomena amplified by climate change and human activities, on the natural and anthropogenic environment, focusing on the analysis of a section of the Cigher River in the Crișul Alb basin in western Romania. The research aims [...] Read more.
The study explores the impact of floods, phenomena amplified by climate change and human activities, on the natural and anthropogenic environment, focusing on the analysis of a section of the Cigher River in the Crișul Alb basin in western Romania. The research aims to identify areas vulnerable to flooding under different discharge scenarios, assess the impact on agricultural lands, and propose a reproducible methodology based on the integration of GIS technologies, hydraulic modeling in HEC-RAS, and the use of LiDAR data. The methodology includes hydrological analysis, processing of the Digital Elevation Model (DEM), delineation of geometries, hydraulic simulation for four discharge scenarios (S1–S4), and evaluation of the flood impact on agricultural and non-agricultural lands. Evaluated parameters, such as water velocity and flow section areas, highlighted an increased flood risk under maximum discharge conditions. The results show that scenario S4, with a discharge of 60 m3/s, causes extensive flooding, affecting 871 hectares of land with various uses. The conclusions emphasize the importance of using modern technologies for risk management, protecting vulnerable areas, and reducing economic and ecological losses. The proposed methodology is also applicable to other river basins, representing a useful model for developing sustainable strategies for flood prevention and management. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Environmental Monitoring and Analysis for Hydrology)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>The localization of the study area (processed based on [<a href="#B54-applsci-15-02520" class="html-bibr">54</a>,<a href="#B55-applsci-15-02520" class="html-bibr">55</a>]).</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Research methodology.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>The Digital Elevation Model of the analyzed river sector.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>The geometric elements of the selected river sector.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Longitudinal profile of the Cigher River and elevation variations for different flow scenarios; (<b>a</b>) the longitudinal profile of the riverbed, showing the elevation along the main channel; (<b>b</b>) elevation variation along the river for different flow scenarios (S1–S4), where WS S1–S4 represents water surface levels under different hydraulic conditions and the blue color symbolizes the water level in the first scenario.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>A 3D analysis of the river’s longitudinal profile under different hydraulic scenarios. The figure shows variations in the riverbed and bank geometry across different cross-sections (ST 1–32) and scenarios (S1–S4). The green lines represent the bank station limits, while the cyan-blue areas indicate the extent of the water surface under different flow conditions.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Examples of cross-sections in different scenarios, highlighting hydraulic and morphological variations (STx—cross-section; S1–S4—hydraulic scenario; WS—water surface; EG—energy grade line; “ground”—terrain elevation; “bank station” indicates reference points located on the riverbanks).</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>The hydraulic behavior of the Cigher River: A comparison of flood extent in different scenarios (S1–S4).</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Land use in the Cigher Basin (processed based on [<a href="#B54-applsci-15-02520" class="html-bibr">54</a>,<a href="#B59-applsci-15-02520" class="html-bibr">59</a>]).</p>
Full article ">
19 pages, 3487 KiB  
Article
Evaluating the Effectiveness of Soil Profile Rehabilitation for Pluvial Flood Mitigation Through Two-Dimensional Hydrodynamic Modeling
by Julia Atayi, Xin Zhou, Christos Iliadis, Vassilis Glenis, Donghee Kang, Zhuping Sheng, Joseph Quansah and James G. Hunter
Hydrology 2025, 12(3), 44; https://doi.org/10.3390/hydrology12030044 - 26 Feb 2025
Viewed by 273
Abstract
Pluvial flooding, driven by increasingly impervious surfaces and intense storm events, presents a growing challenge for urban areas worldwide. In Baltimore City, MD, USA, climate change, rapid urbanization, and aging stormwater infrastructure are exacerbating flooding impacts, resulting in significant socio-economic consequences. This study [...] Read more.
Pluvial flooding, driven by increasingly impervious surfaces and intense storm events, presents a growing challenge for urban areas worldwide. In Baltimore City, MD, USA, climate change, rapid urbanization, and aging stormwater infrastructure are exacerbating flooding impacts, resulting in significant socio-economic consequences. This study evaluated the effectiveness of a soil profile rehabilitation scenario using a 2D hydrodynamic modeling approach for the Tiffany Run watershed, Baltimore City. This study utilized different extreme storm events, a high-resolution (1 m) LiDAR Digital Terrain Model (DTM), building footprints, and hydrological soil data. These datasets were integrated into a fully coupled 2D hydrodynamic model, the City Catchment Analysis Tool (CityCAT), to simulate urban flood dynamics. The pre-soil rehabilitation simulation revealed a maximum water depth of 3.00 m in most areas, with hydrologic soil groups C and D, especially downstream of the study area. The post-soil rehabilitation simulation was targeted at vacant lots and public parcels, accounting for 33.20% of the total area of the watershed. This resulted in a reduced water depth of 2.50 m. Additionally, the baseline runoff coefficient of 0.49 decreased to 0.47 following the rehabilitation, and the model consistently recorded a peak runoff reduction rate of 4.10 across varying rainfall intensities. The validation using a contingency matrix demonstrated true-positive rates of 0.75, 0.50, 0.64, and 0 for the selected events, confirming the model’s capability at capturing real-world flood occurrences. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Runoff Modelling under Climate Change)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Map showing the study area and its geographical features.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>A contingency table was applied to validate modeled flood results (Source: [<a href="#B37-hydrology-12-00044" class="html-bibr">37</a>]).</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Water depth (m) changes resulting from different storm intensities.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>311 reports received on these extreme storm events.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Social media and newspaper reports received on 10 June 2021 storm event.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Social media and newspaper reports received on 12 September 2023 storm event.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>(<b>A</b>) Boundaries of public properties and vacant lots within the study area; (<b>B</b>) overlay of public parcels and vacant lots on the soil profile map, highlighting the areas targeted for soil rehabilitation.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Spatial distribution of flood water depths post-soil rehabilitation.</p>
Full article ">
15 pages, 1858 KiB  
Article
AFAR-WQS: A Quick and Simple Toolbox for Water Quality Simulation
by Carlos A. Rogéliz-Prada and Jonathan Nogales
Water 2025, 17(5), 672; https://doi.org/10.3390/w17050672 - 26 Feb 2025
Viewed by 175
Abstract
Water quality management in large basins demands tools that balance scientific rigor with computational efficiency to avoid paralysis by analysis. While traditional models offer detailed insights, their complexity and resource intensity hinder timely decision-making. To address this gap, we present AFAR-WQS, an open-source [...] Read more.
Water quality management in large basins demands tools that balance scientific rigor with computational efficiency to avoid paralysis by analysis. While traditional models offer detailed insights, their complexity and resource intensity hinder timely decision-making. To address this gap, we present AFAR-WQS, an open-source MATLAB™ toolbox that introduces a novel integration of assimilation factors with graph theory and a Depth-First Search (DFS) algorithm to rapidly simulate 13 water quality determinants across complex topological networks. AFAR-WQS resolves cumulative processes in networks of up to 30,000 segments in just 163 s on standard hardware, enabling real-time scenario evaluations. Its object-oriented architecture ensures scalability, allowing customization for urban drainage systems or macro-basin studies while maintaining computational efficiency. Case studies demonstrate its utility in prioritizing sanitation investments, assessing water quality at the national scale and fostering stakeholder collaboration through participatory workshops. By bridging the gap between simplified and complex models, AFAR-WQS supports adaptive management in contexts of hydrological uncertainty, regulatory compliance, and climate change. The toolbox is freely available at GitHub, offering a transformative approach for integrated water resource management. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Water Quality Assessment of River Basins)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>(<b>a</b>) Graph representation of a synthetic drainage network with seven reaches. (<b>b</b>) Schematic of the recursive solution framework used by AFAR-WQS to estimate assimilation factors and concentrations across the drainage network. (<b>c</b>) Example calculation of the concentration of a determinant <span class="html-italic">j</span> for a synthetic network with seven reaches.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Folder structure and functions of the AFAR-WQS Toolbox.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>AFAR-WQS computational performance by number of drainage network segments.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Visualization examples of suspended solids for a synthetic network. (<b>a</b>) llustrates the network-wide distribution of suspended solids concentration. (<b>b</b>) depicts the suspended solids profile extending from reach 929 to the network outlet.</p>
Full article ">
22 pages, 8381 KiB  
Article
Assessing the Use of Alternative Soil Data in Hydrological and Water Quality Modeling with SWAT+: SSURGO and POLARIS at Sub-Basin and Field Scales
by Efrain Noa-Yarasca, Javier M. Osorio Leyton, Michael J. White, Jungang Gao and Jeffrey G. Arnold
Water 2025, 17(5), 670; https://doi.org/10.3390/w17050670 - 25 Feb 2025
Viewed by 324
Abstract
The accuracy of soil databases is essential in hydrological modeling, yet limited studies have evaluated the implications of using emerging soil datasets like POLARIS compared to traditional ones such as SSURGO. This study evaluates the performance of POLARIS soil data for simulating the [...] Read more.
The accuracy of soil databases is essential in hydrological modeling, yet limited studies have evaluated the implications of using emerging soil datasets like POLARIS compared to traditional ones such as SSURGO. This study evaluates the performance of POLARIS soil data for simulating the streamflow and sediment yield at both the sub-basin and field scales within the Big Muddy Watershed (BMW), Illinois, U.S.A., using a soft-calibrated SWAT+ model. The field-scale analysis focused on cropland-dominated HRUs from two sub-basins with contrasting POLARIS-SSURGO similarities at the sub-basin scale, optimizing computational efficiency. POLARIS results were compared to those derived from the widely used SSURGO soil database using a soft-calibrated SWAT+ model. At the sub-basin scale, the two datasets showed strong overall agreement for the streamflow and sediment yield over the 81 BMW sub-basins, with minor discrepancies, especially in sediment yield predictions, which exhibited more variability. At the field scale, the agreement between POLARIS and SSURGO was good for both variables, streamflow and sediment yield, though the sediment yield showed greater variability as shown at the sub-basin level. At both scales, the POLARIS and SSURGO outcomes for the streamflow and sediment yield did not always follow the same trend, with discrepancies observed in some sub-basins and HRUs. This suggested that while POLARIS can replicate SSURGO’s streamflow outcomes, this similarity does not always extend to sediment yield predictions and vice versa. At the sub-basin scale, the POLARIS and SSURGO outcomes showed strong alignment (88.9% in “very good” agreement). However, at the field scale, this alignment decreased to 42.9% and 33.3% in specific sub-basins. This indicates that sub-basin aggregation reduces local variability, while finer scales reveal greater sensitivity to soil and hydrological differences. This study highlights POLARIS as a robust alternative to SSURGO for hydrological modeling. Future research should explore its broader application across diverse conditions. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue SWAT Modeling - New Approaches and Perspective)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>(<b>Left</b>) Big Muddy River Watershed (BMW, HUC8: 07140106) showing sub-basin 11 (SB #11) and sub-basin 46 (SB #46) selected for field-scale analysis; (<b>Top Right</b>) Location of Illinois within the United States; (<b>Bottom Right</b>) Location of the BMW in southern Illinois.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>(<b>a</b>) Monthly total precipitation and (<b>b</b>) mean temperature from 2000 to 2021 in the Big Muddy Watershed.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>SSURGO and POLARIS soils along the border between Jefferson and Perry counties in the Big Muddy Watershed.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>User interface for accessing and downloading POLARIS soil data.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Schematic diagram of the methodology involved in the study.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Variation in NSE (light red), correlation (light blue), and PBIAS (green) for streamflow simulations comparing SSURGO (baseline) and POLARIS (alternative) soil data at the sub-basin scale.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Variation in NSE (light red), correlation (light blue), and PBIAS (green) for sediment yield simulations comparing SSURGO (baseline) and POLARIS (alternative) soil data at the sub-basin scale.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Simultaneous evaluation of PBIAS comparing the POLARIS- and SSURGO-based model outcomes for the streamflow (with a light blue box plot at the top) and sediment yield (with an orange box plot at the right side) at the sub-basin scale. The shaded gray box marks the ‘very good’ agreement range: <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mo>−</mo> <mn>10</mn> <mo>%</mo> <mo>&lt;</mo> <msub> <mrow> <mi mathvariant="normal">P</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">B</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">I</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">A</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">S</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi mathvariant="normal">f</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">l</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">o</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">w</mi> </mrow> </msub> <mo>&lt;</mo> <mn>10</mn> <mo>%</mo> </mrow> </semantics></math> for the streamflow and <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mo>−</mo> <mn>15</mn> <mo>%</mo> <mo>&lt;</mo> <msub> <mrow> <mi mathvariant="normal">P</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">B</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">I</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">A</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">S</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi mathvariant="normal">s</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">e</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">d</mi> <mo>.</mo> <mi mathvariant="normal">y</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">i</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">e</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">l</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">d</mi> </mrow> </msub> <mo>&lt;</mo> <mn>15</mn> <mo>%</mo> </mrow> </semantics></math> for the sediment yield. Seventy-two of the eighty-one sub-basins (88.9%) fell within this range.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Variation in NSE (light red), r (light blue), and PBIAS (green) for runoff outcomes comparing SSURGO (baseline) and POLARIS (alternative) soil data at field scale for sub-basins #11 (<b>a</b>) and #46 (<b>b</b>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Variation in NSE (light red) and r (light blue), and PBIAS (green) for sediment yield outcomes comparing SSURGO (baseline) and POLARIS (alternative) soil data at field scale for sub-basins #11 (<b>a</b>) and #46 (<b>b</b>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Evaluation of the PBIAS comparing the POLARIS- and SSURGO-based model outcomes for streamflow (with a light blue box plot at the top) and sediment yield (with an orange box plot at the right side) at the field scale. The shaded gray box indicates ‘very good’ agreement: <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mo>−</mo> <mn>10</mn> <mo>%</mo> <mo>&lt;</mo> <msub> <mrow> <mi mathvariant="normal">P</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">B</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">I</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">A</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">S</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi mathvariant="normal">s</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">t</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">r</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">e</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">a</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">m</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">f</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">l</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">o</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">w</mi> </mrow> </msub> <mo>&lt;</mo> <mn>10</mn> <mo>%</mo> </mrow> </semantics></math> for the streamflow and <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mo>−</mo> <mn>15</mn> <mo>%</mo> <mo>&lt;</mo> <msub> <mrow> <mi mathvariant="normal">P</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">B</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">I</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">A</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">S</mi> </mrow> <mrow> <mi mathvariant="normal">s</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">e</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">d</mi> <mo>.</mo> <mi mathvariant="normal">y</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">i</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">e</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">l</mi> <mi mathvariant="normal">d</mi> </mrow> </msub> <mo>&lt;</mo> <mn>15</mn> <mo>%</mo> </mrow> </semantics></math> for the sediment yield. In sub-basin #11 (<b>a</b>), 42.9% of HRUs (79/184) met this range, while in sub-basin #46 (<b>b</b>), 33.3% (8/24) did.</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>Observed and simulated streamflow using POLARIS and SSURGO soil data at six BMW sites: (<b>a</b>) S1, (<b>b</b>) S2, (<b>c</b>) S3, (<b>d</b>) S4, (<b>e</b>) S5, and (<b>f</b>) S6.</p>
Full article ">Figure 12 Cont.
<p>Observed and simulated streamflow using POLARIS and SSURGO soil data at six BMW sites: (<b>a</b>) S1, (<b>b</b>) S2, (<b>c</b>) S3, (<b>d</b>) S4, (<b>e</b>) S5, and (<b>f</b>) S6.</p>
Full article ">
14 pages, 5332 KiB  
Article
Sustainable Marginal Water Resource Management: A Case Study of Brackish Water Irrigation on the Southern Coast of Laizhou Bay
by Wenquan Liu, Fang Lu and Weitao Han
Sustainability 2025, 17(5), 1956; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17051956 - 25 Feb 2025
Viewed by 192
Abstract
The secure and effective use of marginal water resources, such as brackish water, plays a crucial role in ensuring food security and promoting the sustainable development of agricultural land. This paper conducted indoor soil column experiments to simulate the infiltration of brackish water [...] Read more.
The secure and effective use of marginal water resources, such as brackish water, plays a crucial role in ensuring food security and promoting the sustainable development of agricultural land. This paper conducted indoor soil column experiments to simulate the infiltration of brackish water (0, 1, 3, and 5 g L−1) in order to study the effects of infiltration on the movement of soil water and salt, aiming to address the critical challenge of utilizing marginal water resources in coastal saline-alkali areas. The result showed that, as salt content increases, the movement speed of the moisture front and soil infiltration rate gradually decrease over the same period of time. The moisture front progress and infiltration volume showed a positive correlation. The moisture content of the soil profile gradually decreased, within the soil depth range of 0–40 cm, except for the 5 g L−1 saline water infiltration, and the Cl content increased, while the other treatments showed a trend of first decreasing and then increasing. The higher salt content at the same depth, the higher the Na+ and Cl contents. Under different irrigation water volume conditions, the soil profile conductivity shows a trend of first decreasing and then increasing. The research findings advance fundamental understanding of salinity-driven soil hydrological processes, offering theoretical support for the sustainable utilization of brackish water, balancing agricultural water demand and soil health in coastal areas. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Geographic location of soil sample collection.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Schematic diagram of brackish water irrigation experiment.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>(<b>a</b>) Relationship between wetting front and time under different salinity; (<b>b</b>) relationship between wetting front and water infiltration under different salinity; (<b>c</b>) relationship between infiltration rate and time under different salinity.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Changes of soil moisture content at different soil depths under different salinity.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>(<b>a</b>) Contents of Cl<sup>−</sup> in different soil depths under different salinity; (<b>b</b>) contents of Na<sup>+</sup> in different soil depths under different salinity.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>(<b>a</b>) Electrical conductivity of soil at different depths under different irrigation volumes; (<b>b</b>) moisture content of soil at different depths under different irrigation volumes.</p>
Full article ">
23 pages, 13840 KiB  
Article
A Convection-Permitting Regional Climate Simulation of Changes in Precipitation and Snowpack in a Warmer Climate over the Interior Western United States
by Yonggang Wang, Bart Geerts, Changhai Liu and Xiaoqin Jing
Climate 2025, 13(3), 46; https://doi.org/10.3390/cli13030046 - 24 Feb 2025
Viewed by 256
Abstract
This study investigates the impacts of climate change on precipitation and snowpack in the interior western United States (IWUS) using two sets of convection-permitting Weather Research and Forecasting model simulations. One simulation represents the ~1990 climate, and another represents an ~2050 climate using [...] Read more.
This study investigates the impacts of climate change on precipitation and snowpack in the interior western United States (IWUS) using two sets of convection-permitting Weather Research and Forecasting model simulations. One simulation represents the ~1990 climate, and another represents an ~2050 climate using a pseudo-global warming approach. Climate perturbations for the future climate are given by the CMIP5 ensemble-mean global climate models under the high-end emission scenario. The study analyzes the projected changes in spatial patterns of seasonal precipitation and snowpack, with particular emphasis on the effects of elevation on orographic precipitation and snowpack changes in four key mountain ranges: the Montana Rockies, Greater Yellowstone area, Wasatch Range, and Colorado Rockies. The IWUS simulations reveal an increase in annual precipitation across the majority of the IWUS in this warmer climate, driven by more frequent heavy to extreme precipitation events. Winter precipitation is projected to increase across the domain, while summer precipitation is expected to decrease, particularly in the High Plains. Snow-to-precipitation ratios and snow water equivalent are expected to decrease, especially at lower elevations, while snowpack melt is projected to occur earlier by up to 26 days in the ~2050 climate, highlighting significant impacts on regional water resources and hydrological management. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Model domain with topography. Four subregions are highlighted as rectangular boxes: the Montana Rockies (1), the Greater Yellowstone area (2), the Wasatch Range (3), and the Colorado Rockies (4). Adopted from [<a href="#B10-climate-13-00046" class="html-bibr">10</a>].</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>(<b>a</b>) CMIP5 model ensemble-mean seasonal difference of sea level pressure between future (2036–2065) and past (1976–2005) periods for DJF. (<b>b</b>) Same as (<b>a</b>), but of surface temperature. (<b>c</b>) Same as (<b>a</b>), but of 2 m relative humidity. (<b>d</b>–<b>f</b>) Same as (<b>a</b>–<b>c</b>), but for MAM. (<b>g</b>–<b>i</b>) Same as (<b>a</b>–<b>c</b>), but for JJA. (<b>j</b>–<b>l</b>) Same as (<b>a</b>–<b>c</b>), but for SON. The numbers at upper right corners are the mean differences over the IWUS domain. DJF stands for December, January, and February; MAM stands for March, April, and May; JJA stands for June, July, and August; and SON stands for September, October, and November.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>(<b>a</b>) The 30-year mean annual precipitation from the past climate simulation. (<b>b</b>) Same as (<b>a</b>), but for the future simulation. (<b>c</b>) Absolute difference between the past and future climates. (<b>d</b>) Percentage difference between the past and future climates. The contours in (<b>c</b>,<b>d</b>) are terrain elevation, at 800 m intervals starting at 800 m MSL, whereas higher elevations are associated with darker colors.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>(<b>a</b>) The 30-year mean seasonal precipitation difference between the past and future climates for DJF. (<b>b</b>) Same as (<b>a</b>), but for percentage difference. (<b>c</b>,<b>d</b>) Same as (<b>a</b>), but for MAM. (<b>e</b>,<b>f</b>) Same as (<b>a</b>), but for JJA. (<b>g</b>,<b>h</b>) Same as (<b>a</b>), but for SON. The contours are terrain elevation, at 800 m intervals starting at 800 m MSL, whereas higher elevations are associated with darker colors.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Variation of annual and seasonal precipitation changes between past and future climates as a function of elevation over the subregion of (<b>a</b>) the Montana Rockies, (<b>b</b>) the Greater Yellowstone area, (<b>c</b>) the Wasatch Range, and (<b>d</b>) the Colorado Rockies. The boxes represent the frequency of elevation bins. Elevation is normalized between the lowest and highest grid point within each subregion.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>(<b>a</b>) The 30-year mean annual snowfall from the past simulation. (<b>b</b>) The 30-year mean annual snowfall difference between the past and future climates. (<b>c</b>,<b>d</b>) Same as (<b>a</b>,<b>b</b>), but for annual rainfall.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>(<b>a</b>) The 30-year mean SR averaged over the cold season (October-April) from the past climate simulation. (<b>b</b>) Same as (<b>a</b>), but for the future simulation. (<b>c</b>) Absolute difference between the past and future climates. (<b>d</b>) Percentage difference between the past and future climates. The contours in (<b>c</b>,<b>d</b>) are terrain elevation, at 800 m intervals starting at 800 m MSL, whereas higher elevations are associated with darker colors.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Variation of SR as a function of elevation for past climate (black upward triangles), future climate (red downward triangles), and the difference between past and future climates (purple circles) for (<b>a</b>) the Montana Rockies, (<b>b</b>) the Greater Yellowstone area, (<b>c</b>) the Wasatch Range, and (<b>d</b>) the Colorado Rockies. The boxes represent the frequency of elevation bins. Elevation is normalized between the lowest and highest grid point.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>(<b>a</b>) The 30-year mean SWE on Apr 1st from the past climate simulation. (<b>b</b>) Same as (<b>a</b>), but for the future simulation. (<b>c</b>) Absolute difference between past and future climates. (<b>d</b>) Percentage difference between past and future climates, with grey shade representing past SWE less than 10 mm.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>(<b>a</b>) Variation of mean SWE as the function of elevation for the Montana Rockies. (<b>b</b>) Same as (<b>a</b>), but for the difference between the past and future climates. (<b>c</b>,<b>d</b>) Same as (<b>a</b>,<b>b</b>), but for the Greater Yellowstone area. (<b>e</b>,<b>f</b>) Same as (<b>a</b>,<b>b</b>), but for the Wasatch Range. (<b>g</b>,<b>h</b>) Same as (<b>a</b>,<b>b</b>), but for the Colorado Rockies. The blue boxes represent the frequency of elevation bins.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Seasonal snowpack cycle as a function of elevation for (<b>a</b>) the Montana Rockies, (<b>b</b>) the Greater Yellowstone area, (<b>c</b>) the Wasatch Range, and (<b>d</b>) the Colorado Rockies. The solid curves represent the past climate and the dashed ones represent the future climate. The black color represents grid boxes with the lowest 1/3 elevations, the red color for the middle 1/3, and the blue color for the highest 1/3. The numbers of days shown in each panel are the difference in calendar days between the past and future climates that 10% of the current SWE maximum is reached, and the numbers in mm are the difference in SWE maximum from the past and future climates.</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>(<b>a</b>) Histogram and (<b>b</b>) percentile–percentile plot of daily precipitation from the past and future simulations for the subregion of the Montana Rockies. Days with zero precipitation are included in (<b>a</b>) but not in (<b>b</b>). The 16 dots in (<b>b</b>) represent the following precipitation distribution percentiles: 2.5, 10, 20, 25, 30, 40, 50 (median), 60, 70, 75, 80, 90, 95, 97.5, 99, and 99.9%. (<b>c</b>,<b>d</b>) Same as (<b>a</b>,<b>b</b>), but for the Greater Yellowstone area. (<b>e</b>,<b>f</b>) Same as (<b>a</b>,<b>b</b>), but for the Wasatch Range. (<b>g</b>,<b>h</b>) Same as (<b>a</b>,<b>b</b>), but for the Colorado Rockies.</p>
Full article ">
29 pages, 6521 KiB  
Article
Hydrological 0D and 2D Modelling of the Navio-Quebrado Coastal Lagoon (La Guajira, Colombia): A Challenging Exercise
by Andrea Gianni Cristoforo Nardini, Franklin Torres-Bejarano, Jairo R. Escobar Villanueva, Rosa-Angélica Rodríguez Fernández, Jose Miguel Fragozo Arevalo and Jhonny I. Pérez-Montiel
Water 2025, 17(5), 636; https://doi.org/10.3390/w17050636 - 21 Feb 2025
Viewed by 446
Abstract
In a previous paper, we presented a very simple monitoring system. That system aimed at providing the basic information needed to set up a hydrological simulation model that would be used to understand the behavior of the system and to explore possible changes [...] Read more.
In a previous paper, we presented a very simple monitoring system. That system aimed at providing the basic information needed to set up a hydrological simulation model that would be used to understand the behavior of the system and to explore possible changes linked to future climates. After more than 1.5 years of observations, the gathered information was utilizable to test a 0D hydrological model. This exercise is presented here, together with a comparison with a more refined, and more demanding, 2D hydrodynamic model, enlightening strengths and weaknesses. Several details are revealed in this paper showing how even a simple case needs some type of art in order to overcome the unavoidable difficulties. Surprisingly nice answers have been obtained that illuminate the behavior of the lagoon and shed light on the key points to be improved both in monitoring and modelling. This exercise can be of help in several similar situations. Full article
(This article belongs to the Section Hydraulics and Hydrodynamics)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>System approach: our lagoon is a dynamic system with several natural exogenous inputs (river freshwater inflow; direct precipitation inflow; climatic variables determining the evaporation rate; sea level with its astronomic and meteorological pattern)—all affected by climate change—and possibly a human-driven exogenous input when interventions are applied to open or close the lagoon mouth. (<b>a</b>) Full scheme with two state variables: the storage volume V(t) and the area A(t) (and shape) of the mouth exchanging water with the sea; (<b>b</b>) simplified scheme (“core model”) useful to test and calibrate the model, with just one state variable (storage), and the mouth area is considered a known exogenous variable, greatly simplifying the analysis.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Process adopted to generate the topo-bathymetric DEM: (<b>a</b>) topo-bathymetric GNSS-RTK campaign; (<b>b</b>) interpolation of points to generate the bathymetric surface y (<b>c</b>) integration with topographic DEM for the dry areas, obtained from a points cloud from photogrammetry of images obtained by a crewed aircraft.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Relationships: (<b>a</b>) elevation–volume y = y(V), (R<sup>2</sup> = 0.999); (<b>b</b>) area–volume A = A(V) (R<sup>2</sup> = 0.986).</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Water exchange with the sea: (<b>a</b>) the boca (open) of the lagoon during an “open period” (ancho: width; longitude: length); (<b>b</b>) hydraulic schematization adopted for the alternative method to estimate flows; the slope is approximated as Δy/L (with reference to (<b>a</b>)).</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Correspondence between measured and estimated flowrates: (<b>a</b>) Matching between measured exchange flows (Q<sub>B</sub>) and estimated flow (q) through Equations (3) and (4); that is, as a function of the height difference and the cross-section area A (R<sup>2</sup> = 0.9103). Data utilized from 8 June 2022 until 16 December 2022; (<b>b</b>) matching from the simplified hydraulic method (R<sup>2</sup> = 0.9279).</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Temporal pattern of lagoon elevation and mouth area: (<b>a</b>) time pattern of lagoon elevation (gray graph) and boca status (1: closed; 2: semi open; 3: open) during our monitoring period (10 December 2021–30 June 2023) estimated from real-world data (orange graph), and modelled according to the logic explained above (blue graph); (<b>b</b>) time pattern of the boca cross-sectional area A extrapolated from the few measurements available (orange graph) and determined by the model implementing the theory presented here by assuming the same starting point (blue graph).</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Multiannual monthly temperature pattern (data from IDEAM, Almirante Padilla airport station of the town of Riohacha, about 20 km away from the lagoon; period 1 October 1972–1 March 2020).</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Forcing factors and boundary conditions for model 2D configuration.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>0D model performance: (<b>a</b>) River inflow and precipitation measured; (<b>b</b>) General behavior of the model coherent with the system physics when there is a significant river inflow or precipitation. See text for detailed explanations. Notice that to allow discerning the lagoon elevation from that of the sea, the latter is reported without the shift correction (φ = 0.618 m) that the model sees; so, the sea graphs appear in the air, but have to be seen exactly shifted downwards of that quantity. For the sea, the light dense line on the background is the actual sea level measured; the darker shorter amplitude line on top is its 24 h moving average. The bottom line denotes the status of the boca: O: Open; C: Closed; S: Semiopened.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>The system, represented by the model, appears to be very sensitive to the evaporation rate (same parametrization): the adopted rate e = 1.0 cm/day; e = 1.5 cm/day; and e = 0.5 cm/day. The bottom line denotes the status of the boca: O: Open; C: Closed; S: Semiopened.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>The amplitude of oscillations of the water surface elevation (during periods with open mouth) depends very much on the cross-section area of the boca, but not so the general pattern; for example, for the period 7000–9000: the pattern is almost identical for the reconstructed (adopted) cross-section areasand for the same area pattern increased by 50% (inset top-right). The bottom line denotes the status of the boca: O: Open; C: Closed; S: Semiopened.</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>Comparison of the model answer based on the measured area of the boca (light blue line, “Lag simulated”) and that based on the theory and model adopted for the boca dynamics (orange line, “y simulated mouth dynamics”). The bottom line denotes the status of the boca: O: Open; C: Closed; S: Semiopened.</p>
Full article ">Figure 13
<p>Results of the 0D and 2D models compared to measured water level data.</p>
Full article ">Figure 14
<p>The reconstructor scheme of the river flowrate Q: (<b>a</b>) overall view; (<b>b</b>) detailed view. It needs the input time series virtually from a far instant before (t<sub>0</sub>) until current time t to reconstruct the flowrate time series Q(t<sub>0</sub>,t − 1) until the last instant t − 1.</p>
Full article ">
24 pages, 8696 KiB  
Article
Groundwater Vulnerability in the Aftermath of Wildfires at the El Sutó Spring Area: Model-Based Insights and the Proposal of a Post-Fire Vulnerability Index for Dry Tropical Forests
by Mónica Guzmán-Rojo, Luiza Silva de Freitas, Enrrique Coritza Taquichiri and Marijke Huysmans
Fire 2025, 8(3), 86; https://doi.org/10.3390/fire8030086 - 21 Feb 2025
Viewed by 900
Abstract
In response to the escalating frequency and severity of wildfires, this study carried out a preliminary assessment of their impact on groundwater systems by simulating post-fire effects on groundwater recharge. The study focuses on the El Sutó spring area in Santa Cruz, Bolivia, [...] Read more.
In response to the escalating frequency and severity of wildfires, this study carried out a preliminary assessment of their impact on groundwater systems by simulating post-fire effects on groundwater recharge. The study focuses on the El Sutó spring area in Santa Cruz, Bolivia, a region that is susceptible to water scarcity and frequent wildfires. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) Soil-Water-Balance model version 2.0 was utilized, adjusting soil texture and infiltration capacity parameters to reflect the changes induced by wildfire events. The findings indicated a significant decrease in groundwater recharge following a hypothetical high-severity wildfire, with an average reduction of approximately 39.5% in the first year post-fire. A partial recovery was modeled thereafter, resulting in an estimated long-term average reduction of 10%. Based on these results, the El Sutó spring was provisionally classified as having high vulnerability shortly after a wildfire and moderate vulnerability in the extended period. Building on these model-based impacts, a preliminary Fire-Related Forest Recharge Impact Score (FRIS) was proposed. This index is grounded in soil properties and recharge dynamics and is designed to assess hydrological vulnerability after wildfires in dry tropical forests. Although these findings remain exploratory, they offer a predictive framework intended to guide future studies and inform strategies for managing wildfire impacts on groundwater resources. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in the Assessment of Fire Impacts on Hydrology, 2nd Edition)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Location of the El Sutó spring area, illustrating the intersection with the Santa Cruz la Vieja (SCLV) protected zone. Hydrogeological features (e.g., water wells, piezometers, and runoff stations), meteorological stations, the urban center of San José de Chiquitos, neighboring communities, and water bodies are also shown.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>The geological formations of the San Jose mountain range and an approach to the study site. Map (<b>a</b>) is derived from the official geological map of Bolivia, while map (<b>b</b>) is adapted from the “Geochemical Prospecting for Base Metals in the San José de Chiquitos Area” project [<a href="#B47-fire-08-00086" class="html-bibr">47</a>]. The second map focuses particularly on the El Sutó area, highlighting critical geological formations. Both maps incorporate inferences drawn from their respective sources to provide a detailed representation of the region’s geological features.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Conceptual representation of aquifer recharge in fractured sandstones generating the spring, where arrows indicate recharge and discharge processes (<b>a</b>) and the seasonality of the predominant vegetation as reflected in the components of the water balance (precipitation P, interception I, evaporation E, transpiration T, surface runoff S<sub>off</sub>, and recharge R) influencing infiltration, with arrows showing water distribution in both seasons (<b>b</b>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>(<b>a</b>) Vegetation distribution around the El Sutó spring, derived from the Territorial Development Plan for Good Living for San José de Chiquitos (2016) and (<b>b</b>,<b>c</b>) comparative maps of the leaf area index (LAI) during the rainy season (February 2015) and the dry season (July 2015), respectively.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Annual rainfall deviations from the 40-year average in San José de Chiquitos, highlighting years with above- and below-average precipitation. The figure showcases the cyclical patterns of wet and dry phases, with visible clusters of rainy and dry years, especially during the last five years.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Schematic representation of the SWB-USGS V2.0 model, based on the Thornthwaite–Mather daily soil moisture accounting approach [<a href="#B60-fire-08-00086" class="html-bibr">60</a>]. Arrows depict each computational cell’s primary inflows, outflows, and storage components.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Soil–water interactions through three pairs of graphs. The first pair (<b>a</b>) examines the Curve Number (CN)’s impact on infiltration and recharge. The central graphs (<b>b</b>) explore the link between maximum infiltration capacity and its effects on infiltration and recharge rates. In contrast, the rightmost graphs (<b>c</b>) reveal the influence of root zone depth (Rzn) on these same variables. These parameter combinations were varied as part of a sensitivity analysis, where the three parameters were systematically assigned random values to test how they interact and to identify their relative influence on infiltration processes.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Relationship between daily precipitation and groundwater recharge under three distinct conditions. (<b>a</b>) Pre-fire (baseline) represents normal infiltration and recharge before any fire disturbance. (<b>b</b>) First year post-fire depicts reduced infiltration and hence lower recharge due to immediate fire effects (ash deposition, hydrophobic layers). (<b>c</b>) Beyond two years post-fire reflects a partial recovery of soil structure, with hydrophobicity diminishing over time and recharge increasing relative to the first year but not necessarily returning to pre-fire levels.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Spatial distribution of annual recharge for three scenarios, namely (<b>a</b>) normal (pre-fire) conditions, (<b>b</b>) the first year post-fire, and (<b>c</b>) beyond two years post-fire. Each scenario includes dry, rainy, and annual season outputs.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Reduction in recharge after a simulated wildfire from the pre-fire baseline scenario, shown for (<b>a</b>) the first year post-fire and (<b>b</b>) more than two years later. Each panel presents dry, rainy, and annual season variations in recharge losses.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Post-fire recharge vulnerability during a dry year. Panels compare (<b>a</b>) conditions in the first year following a simulated wildfire event with (<b>b</b>) the subsequent years, illustrating spatial patterns of recharge deficits.</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>Fire-Related Forest Recharge Impact Score (FRIS) for post-fire conditions, categorizing recharge vulnerability into five discrete levels according to soil texture, infiltration capacity, and root depth based on the GOD method.</p>
Full article ">Figure 13
<p>(<b>a</b>) Comparison of recharge estimates in the San José de Chiquitos area using TerraClimate and (<b>b</b>) the extent of the 2008 burned region in the same vicinity [<a href="#B76-fire-08-00086" class="html-bibr">76</a>]. Color variations reflect areas with differing recharge patterns and burn severity.</p>
Full article ">Figure 14
<p>(<b>a</b>) Twenty-year recharge trends in San José de Chiquitos and (<b>b</b>,<b>c</b>) annual recharge trajectories at five Chiquitania sites derived from TerraClimate and FLDAS, respectively [<a href="#B76-fire-08-00086" class="html-bibr">76</a>,<a href="#B77-fire-08-00086" class="html-bibr">77</a>]. Negative slopes suggest declining recharge linked to regional disturbances.</p>
Full article ">
20 pages, 9287 KiB  
Article
Snow Melting Experimental Analysis on a Downscaled Shallow Landslide: A Focus on the Seepage Activity of the Snow–Soil System
by Lorenzo Panzeri, Michele Mondani, Monica Papini and Laura Longoni
Water 2025, 17(4), 597; https://doi.org/10.3390/w17040597 - 19 Feb 2025
Viewed by 281
Abstract
The stability of slopes is influenced by seasonal variations in thermal, hydrological, and mechanical processes. This study investigates the role of snowmelt in triggering shallow landslides through controlled laboratory experiments simulating winter, spring, and summer conditions. Snowpack dynamics and water movement were analyzed [...] Read more.
The stability of slopes is influenced by seasonal variations in thermal, hydrological, and mechanical processes. This study investigates the role of snowmelt in triggering shallow landslides through controlled laboratory experiments simulating winter, spring, and summer conditions. Snowpack dynamics and water movement were analyzed to understand filtration, infiltration, and runoff mechanisms. The results show that during winter, snow acts as a protective layer, slowing infiltration through its insulating and loading effects. In spring, rising temperatures melt snow, increasing water infiltration and filtration, accelerating soil saturation, and triggering slope failures. Summer rainfall-induced landslides exhibit distinct mechanisms, driven by progressive saturation. The transition from winter to spring highlights a critical phase where snowmelt interacts with warmer soils, intensifying slope instability risks. Numerical simulations using HYDRUS 1D validated the experimental findings, demonstrating its utility in modeling infiltration under varying thermal gradients. This study underscores the importance of incorporating snowmelt dynamics into landslide risk assessments and early warning systems, particularly as climate change accelerates snowmelt cycles in mountainous regions. These findings provide essential insights into seasonal variations in collapse mechanisms, emphasizing the need for further research to address the increasing impact of snowmelt in shallow landslides. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Water-Related Landslide Hazard Process and Its Triggering Events)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>(<b>A</b>) The landslide simulator in the horizontal position. (<b>B</b>) The instrument inclined at 35° with a soil layer of 15 cm positioned on the slab. (<b>C</b>) The time-domain reflectometer (TDR) for the VWC measurements. (<b>D</b>) The electrode placement for the ERT survey. (<b>E</b>) A wedge of 30° at the edge.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>(<b>A</b>) The location of the bent hose on the simulator, within a portion of gravel and sand soil. Blue arrows represent the water flow from the hose, (<b>B</b>) a photo of the drilled hose.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Sprinklers configuration.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p><b>Above</b>: Scheme of the experimental layout (P1, P2, and P3 represent the temperature sensor’s locations). <b>Below</b>: Front-view photos of the landslide simulator taken at different times during Experiment 1.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>(<b>A</b>) Snow depth evolution during the experiment; (<b>B</b>) cumulated runoff water collected inside the bowl during the experiment; (<b>C</b>) VWC recorded during the experiment; (<b>D</b>) temperature recorded by the three sensors positioned along the simulator located at the maximum depth of the soil layer.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>(<b>A</b>–<b>D</b>) Electric resistivity tomography results at different moments during the experiment.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Results obtained from Hydrus 1D simulation (software layout). (<b>A</b>) Water content trend calculated at each observation point; (<b>B</b>) temperature calculated for each observation point; (<b>C</b>) pattern of observation points throughout soil layer thickness; (<b>D</b>) water flux propagation along the soil depth at different times.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>(<b>A</b>) Water content detected by TDR during the simulation. (<b>B</b>–<b>F</b>) Electric resistivity tomography (ERT) results at different times during the experiment.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p><b>Above</b>: Scheme of the experimental setup. <b>Below</b>: Photos representing the collapse evolution at different times (Experiment 2).</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p><b>Above</b>: Scheme of the experimental setup. <b>Below</b>: Photos representing the collapse evolution of Experiment 3 at different times.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>(<b>A</b>) Water content detected using TDR during the simulation. (<b>B</b>–<b>F</b>) Electric resistivity tomography results at different times during the experiment.</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>(<b>A</b>–<b>C</b>) Sketches representing the three phases of Experiment 1. The size of the arrows qualitatively indicates the amount of water in each of its components. The heat flux and temperature variation are represented by the temperature gradient symbol on the right side. (<b>D</b>) A cumulative runoff graph obtained during the simulation, divided into the three phases.</p>
Full article ">Figure 13
<p>The graph denotes the similarity between the TDR measurements and the corresponding observation points in HYDRUS 1D.</p>
Full article ">Figure 14
<p>(<b>A</b>) Sketches of six phases representing the evolution of Experiment 2; (<b>B</b>) sketches of six phases representing the evolution of Experiment 3.</p>
Full article ">
18 pages, 3793 KiB  
Article
Continuous Simulations for Predicting Green Roof Hydrologic Performance for Future Climate Scenarios
by Komal Jabeen, Giovanna Grossi, Michele Turco, Arianna Dada, Stefania A. Palermo, Behrouz Pirouz, Patrizia Piro, Ilaria Gnecco and Anna Palla
Hydrology 2025, 12(2), 41; https://doi.org/10.3390/hydrology12020041 - 19 Feb 2025
Viewed by 328
Abstract
Urban green spaces, including green roofs (GRs), are vital infrastructure for climate resilience, retaining water in city landscapes and supporting ecohydrological processes. Quantifying the hydrologic performance of GRs in the urban environment for future climate scenarios is the original contribution of this research [...] Read more.
Urban green spaces, including green roofs (GRs), are vital infrastructure for climate resilience, retaining water in city landscapes and supporting ecohydrological processes. Quantifying the hydrologic performance of GRs in the urban environment for future climate scenarios is the original contribution of this research developed within the URCA! project. For this purpose, a continuous modelling approach is undertaken to evaluate the hydrological performance of GRs expressed by means of the runoff volume and peak flow reduction at the event scale for long data series (at least 20 years). To investigate the prediction of GRs performance in future climates, a simple methodological approach is proposed, using monthly projection factors for the definition of future rainfall and temperature time series, and transferring the system parametrization of the current model to the future one. The proposed approach is tested for experimental GR sites in Genoa and Rende, located in Northern and Southern Italy, respectively. Referring to both the Genoa and Rende experimental sites, simulation results are analysed to demonstrate how the GR performance varies with respect to rainfall event characteristics, including total depth, maximum rainfall intensity and ADWP for current and future scenarios. Full article
Show Figures

Graphical abstract

Graphical abstract
Full article ">Figure 1
<p>The hyetographs and the corresponding observed green roof outflows compared with the simulated ones extracted from the continuous simulation of the green roof and the reference impervious roofs for two selected rainfall events observed at the Genoa (<b>a</b>) and Rende (<b>b</b>) experimental sites.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Non-parametric distribution of the hydrologic performance of the Genoa experimental site for each rainfall depth class with respect to the current (<b>a</b>) and future (<b>b</b>) scenarios. Note that the volume reduction is reported as blue boxes while the peak reduction is reported as dark grey boxes.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Non-parametric distribution of the volume and peak reduction rates of the Rende experimental site for each rainfall depth class with respect to the current (<b>a</b>) and future (<b>b</b>) scenarios. Note that the volume reduction is reported as blue boxes while the peak reduction is reported as dark grey boxes.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Non-parametric distribution of the hydrologic performance of the Genoa experimental site for each maximum rainfall intensity class with respect to the current (<b>a</b>) and the future (<b>b</b>) scenarios. Note that the volume reduction is reported as blue boxes while the peak reduction is reported as dark grey boxes.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Non-parametric distribution of the hydrologic performance of the Rende experimental site for each maximum rainfall intensity class with respect to the current (<b>a</b>) and future (<b>b</b>) scenarios. Note that the volume reduction is reported as blue boxes while the peak reduction is reported as dark grey boxes.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Non-parametric distribution of the hydrologic performance of the Genoa experimental site for each Antecedent Dry Weather Period class with respect to the current (<b>a</b>) and future (<b>b</b>) scenarios. Note that the volume reduction is reported as blue boxes while the peak reduction is reported as dark grey boxes.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Non-parametric distribution of the hydrologic performance of the Rende experimental site for each Antecedent Dry Weather Period class with respect to the current (<b>a</b>) and future (<b>b</b>) scenarios. Note that the volume reduction is reported as blue boxes while the peak reduction is reported as dark grey boxes.</p>
Full article ">
12 pages, 1273 KiB  
Article
Leaf Water Storage Capacity Among Eight US Hardwood Tree Species: Differences in Seasonality and Methodology
by Natasha Scavotto, Courtney M. Siegert, Heather D. Alexander and J. Morgan Varner
Hydrology 2025, 12(2), 40; https://doi.org/10.3390/hydrology12020040 - 18 Feb 2025
Viewed by 267
Abstract
Canopy hydrology and forest water inputs are directly linked to the physical properties of tree crowns (e.g., foliar and woody surfaces), which determine a tree’s capacity to intercept and retain incident rainfall. The changing forest structure, notably the decline of oak’s (Quercus [...] Read more.
Canopy hydrology and forest water inputs are directly linked to the physical properties of tree crowns (e.g., foliar and woody surfaces), which determine a tree’s capacity to intercept and retain incident rainfall. The changing forest structure, notably the decline of oak’s (Quercus) dominance and encroachment of non-oak species in much of the upland hardwood forests of the eastern United States, challenges our understanding of how species-level traits scale up to control the forest hydrologic budget. The objective of this study was to determine how the leaf water storage capacity varies across species and canopy layers, and how these relationships change throughout the growing season. We measured the leaf water storage capacity of overstory and midstory trees of native deciduous oaks (Q. alba, Q. falcata, Q. stellata) and non-oak species (Carya tomentosa, Acer rubrum, Ulmus alata, Liquidambar styraciflua, Nyssa sylvatica) using two methods (water displacement and rainfall simulation). Overstory Q. alba leaves retained 0.5 times less water per unit leaf area than other overstory species (p < 0.001) in the early growing season, while in the late growing season, C. tomentosa leaves had the lowest storage capacity (p = 0.024). Quercus falcata leaves displayed a minimal change in storage between seasons, while Q. alba and Q. stellata leaves had higher water storage in the late growing season. Midstory U. alata leaves had 3.5 times higher water storage capacity in the early growing season compared to all the other species (p < 0.001), but this difference diminished in the late growing season. Furthermore, the water storage capacities from the simulated rainfall experiments were up to two times higher than those in the water displacement experiments, particularly during the early growing season. These results underscore the complexity of leaf water storage dynamics, the methodology, and the implications for forest hydrology and species interactions. Broader efforts to understand species-level controls on canopy water portioning through leaf and other crown characteristics are necessary. Full article
(This article belongs to the Section Ecohydrology)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Mean (± SE) leaf water storage in mL cm<sup>−2</sup> during the calm water displacement experiment in the (<b>A</b>) overstory during spring, (<b>B</b>) overstory during fall, (<b>C</b>) overstory comparison between spring and fall, (<b>D</b>) midstory during spring, (<b>E</b>) midstory during fall, and (<b>F</b>) midstory comparison between spring and fall. In panels (<b>C</b>,<b>F</b>), deviations from the 1:1 dotted line indicate seasonal differences in leaf water storage. Significant differences (<span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.05) between species are denoted with different lowercase letters.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Mean (± SE) leaf water storage in mL cm<sup>−2</sup> during the windy water displacement experiment in the (<b>A</b>) overstory during spring, (<b>B</b>) overstory during fall, (<b>C</b>) overstory comparison between spring and fall, (<b>D</b>) midstory during spring, (<b>E</b>) midstory during fall, and (<b>F</b>) midstory comparison between spring and fall. In panels (<b>C</b>,<b>F</b>), deviations from the 1:1 dotted line indicate seasonal differences in leaf water storage. Significant differences (<span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.05) between species are denoted with different lowercase letters.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Mean (± SE) leaf water storage in mL cm<sup>−2</sup> during the rainfall simulation experiment in the (<b>A</b>) overstory during spring, (<b>B</b>) overstory during fall, (<b>C</b>) overstory comparison between spring and fall, (<b>D</b>) midstory during spring, (<b>E</b>) midstory during fall, and (<b>F</b>) midstory comparison between spring and fall. In panels (<b>C</b>,<b>F</b>), deviations from the 1:1 dotted line indicate seasonal differences in leaf water storage. Significant differences (<span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.05) between species are denoted with different lowercase letters.</p>
Full article ">
42 pages, 2991 KiB  
Review
Event-Based vs. Continuous Hydrological Modeling with HEC-HMS: A Review of Use Cases, Methodologies, and Performance Metrics
by Golden Odey and Younghyun Cho
Hydrology 2025, 12(2), 39; https://doi.org/10.3390/hydrology12020039 - 17 Feb 2025
Viewed by 407
Abstract
This study critically examines the applications of the Hydrologic Engineering Center-Hydrologic Modeling System (HEC-HMS) in hydrological research from 2000 to 2023, with a focus on its use in event-based and continuous simulations. A bibliometric analysis reveals a steady growth in research productivity and [...] Read more.
This study critically examines the applications of the Hydrologic Engineering Center-Hydrologic Modeling System (HEC-HMS) in hydrological research from 2000 to 2023, with a focus on its use in event-based and continuous simulations. A bibliometric analysis reveals a steady growth in research productivity and identifies key thematic areas, including hydrologic modeling, climate change impact assessment, and land use analysis. Event-based modeling, employing methods such as the SCS curve number (CN) and SCS unit hydrograph, demonstrates exceptional performance in simulating short-term hydrological responses, particularly in flood risk management and stormwater applications. In contrast, continuous modeling excels in capturing long-term processes, such as soil moisture dynamics and groundwater contributions, using methodologies like soil moisture accounting and linear reservoir baseflow approaches, which are critical for water resource planning and climate resilience studies. This review highlights the adaptability of HEC-HMS, showcasing its successful integration of event-based precision and continuous process modeling through hybrid approaches, enabling robust analyses across temporal scales. By synthesizing methodologies, performance metrics, and case studies, this study offers practical insights for selecting appropriate modeling techniques tailored to specific hydrological objectives. Moreover, it identifies critical research gaps, including the need for advanced calibration methods, enhanced parameter sensitivity analyses, and improved integration with hydraulic models. These findings highlight HEC-HMS’s critical role in improving hydrological research and give a thorough foundation for its use in addressing current water resource concerns. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Flowchart of the research methods.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>The total and cumulative number of publications produced each year between 2000 and 2023.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Overlay visualization of country collaboration network.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Visualization of keyword co-occurrence analysis for (<b>a</b>) timeline overlay network; (<b>b</b>) item density.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Graphical results for a typical event-based modeling (adapted from [<a href="#B79-hydrology-12-00039" class="html-bibr">79</a>]).</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Graphical results for a typical continuous modeling (adapted from [<a href="#B83-hydrology-12-00039" class="html-bibr">83</a>]).</p>
Full article ">
Back to TopTop