Refine
Has Fulltext
- no (15)
Document Type
- Article (15) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (15)
Keywords
- Hydrology (2)
- ECHSE (1)
- Ecology (1)
- Flood forecasting (1)
- Forecast verification (1)
- Genetic model (1)
- Geochemistry (1)
- Hydraulics (1)
- Hydrodynamics (1)
- Hydrological modelling (1)
The hydrological cycle is a dynamic system by its nature, but sometimes accelerated through anthropogenic activity. A "hydrological change" (i.e. a water cycle that is significantly changing over a longer period of time) can be very different in character, depending on the specific natural conditions and the underlying spatial and temporal scales. Such changes may affect the availability and quality of water as essential pre-requisites for human development and ecosystem stability. Hydrological extremes, such as floods and droughts, may also be affected, what is also vitally important, because of their profound economic and societal impacts. Anthropogenically induced hydrological change can be attributed to three main external causes: first, the Earth's climate is changing significantly and thus directly affecting the terrestrial hydro-systems via the exchange of energy and heat. The second major issue is the land cover and its management that has been modified fundamentally by conversion of land for agriculture, forestry, and other purposes such as industrialisation and urbanisation. Finally, water resources are being used more than ever for human development, especially for agriculture, industrial activities, and navigation. If the regional terrestrial hydrological cycle is changing and counter-measures are desirable, it is from a scientific perspective mandatory to understand the extent and nature of such changes, and, especially, to identify their possible anthropogenic origin. There are, however, fundamental gaps in our knowledge, in particular about the role of feedbacks between individual processes and compartments of the hydrological cycle or the relevance of the interactions with other sub-systems of our planet, such as the atmosphere or the vegetation. This paper mentions several examples of hydrological change and discusses their identification, interaction processes, and feedback mechanisms, along with modelling issues. The possibilities and limitations of modelling are demonstrated by means of two studies: one from the river-lake system on the Middle-Havel River and one from the catchment of the Wahnbach Reservoir. The applied model systems comprise a series of consecutively coupled individual models (so-called one-way-coupling). Model systems that are able reflect feedback effects (two-way- coupling) are still in the development stage. It became clear that the applied model systems were able to reproduce the observed dynamics of the hydrological cycle and of selected matter fluxes. However, one has to be aware that the simulated time periods and scenarios represent rather moderately transient conditions, what is the justification why the one-way-coupling seems to be applicable. Furthermore, it was shown that the modelling uncertainty is considerably large. Nevertheless, this uncertainty can be distinguished from effects of changed internal systems dynamics or from changed boundary conditions, what is a basis for the usability of such model systems for prognostic purposes.
Detention areas provide a means to lower peak discharges in rivers by temporarily storing excess water. In the case of extreme flood events, the storage effect reduces the risk of dike failures or extensive inundations for downstream reaches and near the site of abstraction. Due to the large amount of organic matter contained in the river water and the inundation of terrestrial vegetation in the detention area, a deterioration of water quality may occur. In particular, decay processes can cause a severe depletion of dissolved oxygen (DO) in the temporary water body. In this paper, we studied the potential of a water quality model to simulate the DO dynamics in a large but shallow detention area to be built at the Elbe River (Germany). Our focus was on examining the impact of spatial discretization on the model's performance and usability. Therefore, we used a zero-dimensional (OD) and a two-dimensional (2D) modeling approach in parallel. The two approaches solely differ in their spatial discretization, while conversion processes, parameters, and boundary conditions were kept identical. The dynamics of DO simulated by the two models are similar in the initial flooding period but diverge when the system starts to drain. The deviation can be attributed to the different spatial discretization of the two models, leading to different estimates of flow velocities and water depths. Only the 2D model can account for the impact of spatial variability on the evolution of state variables. However, its application requires high efforts for pre- and post-processing and significantly longer computation times. The 2D model is, therefore, not suitable for investigating various flood scenarios or for analyzing the impact of parameter uncertainty. For practical applications, we recommend to firstly set up a fast-running model of reduced spatial discretization, e.g. a OD model. Using this tool, the reliability of the simulation results should be checked by analyzing the parameter uncertainty of the water quality model. A particular focus may be on those parameters that are spatially variable and, therefore, believed to be better represented in a 2D approach. The benefit from the application of the more costly 2D model should be assessed, based on the analyses carried out with the OD model. A 2D model appears to be preferable only if the simulated detention area has a complex topography, flow velocities are highly variable in space, and the parameters of the water quality model are well known.
Hydrologic modelers often need to know which method of quantitative precipitation estimation (QPE) is best suited for a particular catchment. Traditionally, QPE methods are verified and benchmarked against independent rain gauge observations. However, the lack of spatial representativeness limits the value of such a procedure. Alternatively, one could drive a hydrological model with different QPE products and choose the one which best reproduces observed runoff. Unfortunately, the calibration of conceptual model parameters might conceal actual differences between the QPEs. To avoid such effects, we abandoned the idea of determining optimum parameter sets for all QPE being compared. Instead, we carry out a large number of runoff simulations, confronting each QPE with a common set of random parameters. By evaluating the goodness-of-fit of all simulations, we obtain information on whether the quality of competing QPE methods is significantly different. This knowledge is inferred exactly at the scale of interest-the catchment scale. We use synthetic data to investigate the ability of this procedure to distinguish a truly superior QPE from an inferior one. We find that the procedure is prone to failure in the case of linear systems. However, we show evidence that in realistic (nonlinear) settings, the method can provide useful results even in the presence of moderate errors in model structure and streamflow observations. In a real-world case study on a small mountainous catchment, we demonstrate the ability of the verification procedure to reveal additional insights as compared to a conventional cross validation approach.
We generated medium-range forecasts of runoff for a 50 km(2) headwater catchment upstream of a reservoir using numerical weather predictions (NWPs) of the past as input to an operational hydrological model. NWP data originating from different sources were tested. For a period of 8.5 years, we computed daily forecasts with a lead time of +120 h based on an empirically downscaled version of the ECMWF's ensemble prediction system. For the last 3.5 years of the test period, we also tried the deterministic COSMO-EU forecast disseminated by the German Weather Service for lead times of up to +72 h. Common measures of skill indicate superiority of the ensemble runoff forecast over single-value forecasts for longer lead times. However, regardless of which NWP data were being used, the probability of event detection (POD) was found to be generally lower than 50%. In many cases, values in the range of 20-30% were obtained. At the same time, the false alarms ratio (FAR) was often found to be considerably high. The observed uncertainties in the hydrological forecasts were shown to originate from both the insufficient quality of precipitation forecasts as well as deficiencies in hydrological modeling and quantitative precipitation estimation. With respect to the anticipatory control of reservoirs in the studied catchment, the value of the tested runoff forecasts appears to be limited. This is due to the unfavorably low POD/FAR ratio in conjunction with a high cost-loss ratio. However, our results indicate that, in many cases, major runoff events related to snow melt can be successfully predicted as early as 4-5 days in advance.
Hydrological models are commonly used to perform real-time runoff forecasting for flood warning. Their application requires catchment characteristics and precipitation series that are not always available. An alternative approach is nonparametric modelling based only on runoff series. However, the following questions arise: Can nonparametric models show reliable forecasting? Can they perform as reliably as hydrological models? We performed probabilistic forecasting one, two and three hours ahead for a runoff series, with the aim of ascribing a probability density function to predicted discharge using time series analysis based on stochastic dynamics theory. The derived dynamic terms were compared to a hydrological model, LARSIM. Our procedure was able to forecast within 95% confidence interval 1-, 2- and 3-h ahead discharge probability functions with about 1.40 m(3)/s of range and relative errors (%) in the range [-30; 30]. The LARSIM model and the best nonparametric approaches gave similar results, but the range of relative errors was larger for the nonparametric approaches.