Comparative predictions of discharge from an artificial catchment (Chicken Creek) using sparse data

Abstract

Abstract. Ten conceptually different models in predicting discharge from the artificial Chicken Creek catchment in North-East Germany were used for this study. Soil texture and topography data were given to the modellers, but discharge data was withheld. We compare the predictions with the measurements from the 6 ha catchment and discuss the conceptualization and parameterization of the models. The predictions vary in a wide range, e.g. with the predicted actual evapotranspiration ranging from 88 to 579 mm/y and the discharge from 19 to 346 mm/y. The predicted components of the hydrological cycle deviated systematically from the observations, which were not known to the modellers. Discharge was mainly predicted as subsurface discharge with little direct runoff. In reality, surface runoff was a major flow component despite the fairly coarse soil texture. The actual evapotranspiration (AET) and the ratio between actual and potential ET was systematically overestimated by nine of the ten models. None of the model simulations came even close to the observed water balance for the entire 3-year study period. The comparison indicates that the personal judgement of the modellers was a major source of the differences between the model results. The most important parameters to be presumed were the soil parameters and the initial soil-water content while plant parameterization had, in this particular case of sparse vegetation, only a minor influence on the results.

Impact of model structure on flow simulation and hydrological realism: from a lumped to a semi-distributed approach

“…Such experiments have been helpful for exploring model simulation performance of lumped (e.g., Duan et al, 2006;Breuer et al, 2009), semi-distributed (e.g., Duan et al, 2006;Holländer et al, 2009) and distributed (e.g., Henderson-Sellers et al, 1993;Reed et al, 2004;Holländer et al, 2009;Smith et al, 2012;Nijzink and Savenije, 2016) models in a consistent way using the same input data. To go beyond specific analyses and provide general conclusions, multi-catchment experiments have been proposed by several authors (e.g., Perrin et al, 2001;Gupta et al, 2014) and are now used extensively.…”

The Hydrological Open Air Laboratory (HOAL) in Petzenkirchen: a hypothesis-driven observatory

“…Ideally, one would like to have at least three replicas of the same experiments. There are a few examples where this is already put into practice, such as the Biosphere 2 hillslope experiments performed in a green house (Hopp et al, 2009) but, usually, even dedicated largescale experiments such as the Chicken Creek artificial catchment (Holländer et al, 2009(Holländer et al, , 2014 do not involve multiple replicas.…”

Using Python as a coupling platform for integrated catchment models

“…CMF allows for the development of detailed mechanistic models as well as lumped large scale linear storage based models. In this study, a two dimensional Richards-based hill slope model was setup, whereas in an ungauged artificial catchment study (Holländer et al, 2009) a 2.5 dimensional GreenAmpt/Darcy approach was chosen.…”