Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Advances in Meteorology
Volume 2016, Article ID 8582041, 10 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/8582041
Research Article

Impact of DEM Resolution and Spatial Scale: Analysis of Influence Factors and Parameters on Physically Based Distributed Model

1College of Hydrology and Water Resources, Hohai University, Nanjing 210098, China
2National Cooperative Innovation Center for Water Safety & Hydro-Science, Hohai University, Nanjing 210098, China
3North China University of Water Resources and Electric Power, School of Water Conservancy, Zhengzhou 450045, China

Received 10 May 2016; Revised 11 August 2016; Accepted 14 September 2016

Academic Editor: Francesco Viola

Copyright © 2016 Hanchen Zhang et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Linked References

  1. M. B. Smith, D.-J. Seo, V. I. Koren et al., “The distributed model intercomparison project (DMIP): motivation and experiment design,” Journal of Hydrology, vol. 298, no. 1–4, pp. 4–26, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  2. K. Beven, “Changing ideas in hydrology—the case of physically-based models,” Journal of Hydrology, vol. 105, no. 1-2, pp. 157–172, 1989. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  3. V. Y. Ivanov, E. R. Vivoni, R. L. Bras, and D. Entekhabi, “Preserving high-resolution surface and rainfall data in operational-scale basin hydrology: a fully-distributed physically-based approach,” Journal of Hydrology, vol. 298, no. 1–4, pp. 80–111, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  4. M. Sivapalan, K. Beven, and E. F. Wood, “On hydrologic similarity: 2. A scaled model of storm runoff production,” Water Resources Research, vol. 23, pp. 2266–2278, 1987. View at Google Scholar
  5. L. Liuzzo, L. V. Noto, E. R. Vivoni, and G. La Loggia, “Basin-scale water resources assessment in Oklahoma under synthetic climate change scenarios using a fully distributed hydrologic model,” Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 107–122, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  6. M. Sivapalan, K. Takeuchi, S. W. Franks et al., “IAHS Decade on Predictions in Ungauged Basins (PUB), 2003–2012: shaping an exciting future for the hydrological sciences,” Hydrological Sciences Journal, vol. 48, no. 6, pp. 857–880, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  7. K. Beven and A. Binley, “The future of distributed models: model calibration and uncertainty prediction,” Hydrological Processes, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 279–298, 1992. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  8. P. Yang, D. P. Ames, A. Fonseca et al., “What is the effect of LiDAR-derived DEM resolution on large-scale watershed model results?” Environmental Modelling & Software, vol. 58, pp. 48–57, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  9. M. Bierkens, P. Finke, and P. De Willigen, Upscaling and Downscaling Methods for Environmental Research, Springer, 2000.
  10. M. Sivapalan, R. Grayson, and R. Woods, “Scale and scaling in hydrology,” Hydrological Processes, vol. 18, pp. 1369–1371, 2004. View at Google Scholar
  11. R. Rojas, P. Julien, and B. Johnson, “A 2-dimensional rainfall-runoff and sediment model,” CASC2D-SED. Reference Manual, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colo, USA, 2003. View at Google Scholar
  12. K. J. Beven, Rainfall-Runoff Modelling: The Primer, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, USA, 2011.
  13. K. Beven, “Linking parameters across scales: subgrid parameterizations and scale dependent hydrological models,” Hydrological Processes, vol. 9, no. 5-6, pp. 507–525, 1995. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  14. G. Blöschl, “Scaling in hydrology,” Hydrological Processes, vol. 15, pp. 709–711, 2001. View at Google Scholar
  15. V. P. Singh, “Watershed modeling,” in Computer Models of Watershed Hydrology, pp. 1–22, 1995. View at Google Scholar
  16. J. Zhang and X. Chu, “Impact of DEM resolution on puddle characterization: comparison of different surfaces and methods,” Water, vol. 7, no. 5, pp. 2293–2313, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  17. R. H. Erskine, T. R. Green, J. A. Ramirez, and L. H. MacDonald, “Comparison of grid-based algorithms for computing upslope contributing area,” Water Resources Research, vol. 42, no. 9, Article ID W09416, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  18. J. Yang and X. Chu, “Effects of dem resolution on surface depression properties and hydrologic connectivity,” Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, vol. 18, no. 9, pp. 1157–1169, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  19. M. W. Gitau and I. Chaubey, “Regionalization of swat model parameters for use in ungauged watersheds,” Water, vol. 2, pp. 849–871, 2010. View at Google Scholar
  20. H. Wan, J. Xia, L. Zhang, D. She, Y. Xiao, and L. Zou, “Sensitivity and interaction analysis based on Sobol' method and its application in a distributed flood forecasting model,” Water, vol. 7, no. 6, pp. 2924–2951, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  21. Y. Gan, Q. Duan, W. Gong et al., “A comprehensive evaluation of various sensitivity analysis methods: a case study with a hydrological model,” Environmental Modelling & Software, vol. 51, pp. 269–285, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  22. C.-S. Zhan, X.-M. Song, J. Xia, and C. Tong, “An efficient integrated approach for global sensitivity analysis of hydrological model parameters,” Environmental Modelling & Software, vol. 41, pp. 39–52, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  23. A. Van Griensven, T. Meixner, S. Grunwald, T. Bishop, M. Diluzio, and R. Srinivasan, “A global sensitivity analysis tool for the parameters of multi-variable catchment models,” Journal of Hydrology, vol. 324, no. 1–4, pp. 10–23, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  24. O. Rakovec, M. C. Hill, M. P. Clark, A. H. Weerts, A. J. Teuling, and R. Uijlenhoet, “Distributed evaluation of local sensitivity analysis (DELSA), with application to hydrologic models,” Water Resources Research, vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 409–426, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  25. P. Julien and R. Rojas, “Upland erosion modeling with casc2d-sed,” International Journal of Sediment Research, no. 4, pp. 265–274, 2002. View at Google Scholar
  26. M. Marsik and P. Waylen, “An application of the distributed hydrologic model CASC2D to a tropical montane watershed,” Journal of Hydrology, vol. 330, no. 3-4, pp. 481–495, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  27. S. U. S. Senarath, F. L. Ogden, C. W. Downer, and H. O. Sharif, “On the calibration and verification of two-dimensional, distributed, hortonian, continuous watershed models,” Water Resources Research, vol. 36, no. 6, pp. 1495–1510, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  28. W. H. Green and G. Ampt, “Studies on soil phyics,” The Journal of Agricultural Science, vol. 4, pp. 1–24, 1911. View at Google Scholar
  29. M. New, M. Hulme, and P. Jones, “Representing twentieth-century space-time climate variability. Part I: development of a 1961-90 mean monthly terrestrial climatology,” Journal of Climate, vol. 12, no. 2-3, pp. 829–856, 1999. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  30. W. J. Rawls, D. L. Brakensiek, and N. Miller, “Green-ampt infiltration parameters from soils data,” Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, vol. 109, no. 1, pp. 62–70, 1983. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  31. F. L. Ogden, “De st-venant channel routing in distributed watershed modeling,” in Proceedings of the ASCE Hydraulics Division Specialty Conference, pp. 492–496, Buffalo, NY, USA, August 1994.
  32. C. W. Downer, F. L. Ogden, W. D. Martin, and R. S. Harmon, “Theory, development, and applicability of the surface water hydrologic model CASC2D,” Hydrological Processes, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 255–275, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  33. P. Y. Julien, B. Saghafian, and F. L. Ogden, “Raster-based hydrologic modeling of spatially-varied surface runoff,” Journal of the American Water Resources Association, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 523–536, 1995. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  34. S. Kienzle, “The effect of DEM raster resolution on first order, second order and compound terrain derivatives,” Transactions in GIS, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 83–111, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  35. W. Z. Shi and Y. Tian, “A hybrid interpolation method for the refinement of a regular grid digital elevation model,” International Journal of Geographical Information Science, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 53–67, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  36. J. Vaze, J. Teng, and G. Spencer, “Impact of DEM accuracy and resolution on topographic indices,” Environmental Modelling & Software, vol. 25, no. 10, pp. 1086–1098, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  37. R. H. Erskine, T. R. Green, J. A. Ramirez, and L. H. MacDonald, “Digital elevation accuracy and grid cell size: effects on estimated terrain attributes,” Soil Science Society of America Journal, vol. 71, no. 4, pp. 1371–1380, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  38. Z. Qiu, “Validation of a locally revised topographic index in Central New Jersey, USA,” Water, vol. 7, no. 11, pp. 6616–6633, 2015. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  39. P. F. Quinn, K. J. Beven, and R. Lamb, “The in(a/tanβ) index: how to calculate it and how to use it within the Topmodel framework,” Hydrological Processes, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 161–182, 1995. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  40. F.-W. Chen and C.-W. Liu, “Estimation of the spatial rainfall distribution using inverse distance weighting (IDW) in the middle of Taiwan,” Paddy & Water Environment, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 209–222, 2012. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  41. S. Janapriya and S. S. Bosu, “Assessment of spatial variability of rainfall data using inverse distance weighting (idw) in the manjalar sub-basin of vaigai in tamil nadu,” Trends in Biosciences, vol. 7, no. 21, pp. 3396–3401, 2014. View at Google Scholar
  42. I. Chaubey, A. S. Cotter, T. A. Costello, and T. S. Soerens, “Effect of DEM data resolution on SWAT output uncertainty,” Hydrological Processes, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 621–628, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  43. R. Sørensen and J. Seibert, “Effects of DEM resolution on the calculation of topographical indices: TWI and its components,” Journal of Hydrology, vol. 347, no. 1-2, pp. 79–89, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus