Multi-site calibration, validation, and sensitivity analysis of the MIKE SHE Model for a large watershed in northern China

Abstract

Abstract. Model calibration is essential for hydrologic modeling of large watersheds in a heterogeneous mountain environment. Little guidance is available for model calibration protocols for distributed models that aim at capturing the spatial variability of hydrologic processes. This study used the physically-based distributed hydrologic model, MIKE SHE, to contrast a lumped calibration protocol that used streamflow measured at one single watershed outlet to a multi-site calibration method which employed streamflow measurements at three stations within the large Chaohe River basin in northern China. Simulation results showed that the singlesite calibrated model was able to sufficiently simulate the hydrographs for two of the three stations (Nash-Sutcliffe coefficient of 0.65-0.75, and correlation coefficient 0.81-0.87 during the testing period), but the model performed poorly for the third station (Nash-Sutcliffe coefficient only 0.44). Sensitivity analysis suggested that streamflow of upstream area of the watershed was dominated by slow groundwater, whilst streamflow of middle-and down-stream areas by relatively quick interflow. Therefore, a multi-site calibration protocol was deemed necessary. Due to the potential errors and uncertainties with respect to the representation of spatial variability, performance measures from the multi-site calibration protocol slightly decreased for two of the three stations, whereas it was improved greatly for the third station. We concluded that multi-site calibration protocol reached a compromise in term of model performance for the three stations, reasonably representing the hydrographs of all three stations with Nash-Sutcliffe coefficient ranging from 0.59-072. The multi-site calibration protocol applied in the analysis generally has advantages to the single site calibration protocol.

Effect of single and multi-site calibration techniques on hydrological model performance, parameter estimation and predictive uncertainty: a case study in the Logone catchment, Lake Chad basin

“…A similar approach has been used for validating the SSC technique by several researchers e.g. (Wang et al 2012;Wi et al 2015;Chaibou Begou et al 2016). While SC results were validated at Bongor using independent monthly flow and rainfall data from 2008 to 2010, SMSC was validated at Logone Gana and Bongor using data from the same time period.…”

“…However, calibration of CHMs to determine a suitable set of parameter values that can describe the hydrology of the catchment is not always an easy task . Studies have shown that the parameter set used to calibrate CHMs against flow measured only at the catchment outlet (single-site calibration (SSC)) may not produce similar results at other internal hydrometric stations within the catchment (Wang et al 2012;Wi et al 2015;Leta et al 2017). Furthermore, several researchers have demonstrated the effectiveness of calibrating CHMs with data from different parts of the catchment using simultaneous multi-site calibration (SMSC) over SSC (Wang et al 2012;Wi et al 2015;Chaibou Begou et al 2016).…”

“…(Shrestha et al 2016) have reported that no significant improvements were observed by applying the SMSC compared to SSC especially for flow simulation. Despite this, the application of SMSC and SSC techniques in hydrological modelling is well established, and many studies have demonstrated the superiority of the former technique to the latter (Wang et al 2012;Chaibou Begou et al 2016;Shrestha et al 2016).…”

A large-scale, high-resolution hydrological model parameter data set for climate change impact assessment for the conterminous US

“…Nevertheless, a full hydrologic calibration is extremely resource intensive, especially when the model application requires fine resolution and sophisticated mechanisms. As recommended by other studies, calibrating the model at multiple locations at a small scale may improve streamflow predication (Chien et al, 2013;Zhang et al, 2008;Wang et al, 2012;Jetten et al, 2003). For example, Jetten et al (2003) conclude that predicting the hydrologic response at a single watershed outlet may result in the phenomenon of "predicting the correct result for the wrong reasons" and suggested using multisite calibration within a watershed to reduce the possibility of accurate simulation at a single watershed outlet from a combination of locally inaccurate simulations.…”

Hydrological simulation in a basin of typical tropical climate and soil using the SWAT model part I: Calibration and validation tests

“…During recent decades, several distributed hydrological models have been developed to simulate hydrological processes in basins, such as the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) (Arnold et al, 1998), the European Hydrological System (SHE) (Abbott et al, 1986), the Topography-based Hydrological Model (TOPMODEL) (Beven and Kirkby, 1979), and the Large Basin Hydrological Model (MGB-IPH) (Collischonn and Tucci, 2001), because they allow for an approximate characterization of the spatial variability of a basin by use of data and parameters in a point-grid network (Cao et al, 2006;Wang et al, 2012). Amongthe models mentioned above, the SWAT has excelled.…”