2019
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrh.2018.11.005
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Impact of model structure on the accuracy of hydrological modeling of a Canadian Prairie watershed

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
20
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

2
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 31 publications
(20 citation statements)
references
References 57 publications
0
20
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Streamflow is underestimated by the model, as indicated by the predominance of positive residuals during winter months, while it is less frequently overestimated or quite well-estimated during the summer. The underestimation of major peak flow events was reported in the literature for arid and semi-arid watersheds and ephemeral streams [61,62] and could be explained by bias in the meteorological data not spatially well-distributed, or more general errors in data inputs [63]. Nevertheless, uncertainties associated with river streamflow can be seen in Figure 2 when looking at the 95PPU range that generally well-bracketed the simulation line and confirming the model performance, as well as the quite large uncertainty interval in terms of some peak flow.…”
Section: Streamflow Calibration and Validationmentioning
confidence: 84%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Streamflow is underestimated by the model, as indicated by the predominance of positive residuals during winter months, while it is less frequently overestimated or quite well-estimated during the summer. The underestimation of major peak flow events was reported in the literature for arid and semi-arid watersheds and ephemeral streams [61,62] and could be explained by bias in the meteorological data not spatially well-distributed, or more general errors in data inputs [63]. Nevertheless, uncertainties associated with river streamflow can be seen in Figure 2 when looking at the 95PPU range that generally well-bracketed the simulation line and confirming the model performance, as well as the quite large uncertainty interval in terms of some peak flow.…”
Section: Streamflow Calibration and Validationmentioning
confidence: 84%
“…Moreover, the maps reveal that some sub-basins in the southern watershed (e.g., 63 and 84) have hot-spot areas contributing up to 1.29 t ha −1 year −1 , 12 kg ha −1 year −1 , and 2.4 kg ha −1 year −1 for sediment load, TN, and TP, respectively. These results may be explained by the fact that in these sub-basins, intensive agricultural practices and fertilization are more frequent, and consequently, these generate relatively higher nutrient loads.…”
Section: Water Quality and High Loading Areasmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The modified model has been previously demonstrated to better replicate streamflow and other dominant physical processes such as the fill-spill of the prairie pothole wetlands, which are the defining characteristics of the PPR [28,32,34]. As noted in earlier studies, a limitation of the modified model was the computational cost in representing pothole wetlands at larger spatio-temporal scales [32,34]. Hence, we further modified the model to include a threshold wetland storage capacity to decrease computational cost without significantly reducing the enhanced spatial representation of pothole wetlands and model simulation accuracy.…”
Section: Hydrological Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A modified version of the SWAT model was constructed to better represent pothole wetlands and their impact on watershed hydrology [31][32][33]. Though the modification addressed some of the Prairie region modeling limitations, it imposed significant and sometimes prohibitive computational challenges [34]. Such limitations are particularly important in the context of climate change analyses, for which models are commonly executed over longer time periods.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Evenson et al (2016) also modified the model to estimate the probability of interwetland "fill-spill" hydrologic connections whereby upgradient wetlands fill to capacity and then spill to downgradient wetlands (Figure 4). A previous iteration of the model was used to examine hydrologic connectivity between NFWs and downstream waters in the southeastern and mid-Atlantic U.S. coastal plains (Evenson et al 2015;Lee et al 2018), and an updated version of the model has been used in two watersheds in the Prairie Pothole Region Muhammad et al 2019). Evenson et al (2018) applied the modified SWAT model to a study with an objective of quantifying the cumulative impacts of NFWs on downstream waters in a large North Dakota watershed.…”
Section: Lumped Wetland Model (Us Atlantic Coastal Plain)mentioning
confidence: 99%