Advertisement

Investigating the appropriate model structure for simulation of a karst catchment from the aspect of spatial complexity

  • Yong ChangEmail author
  • Jichun Wu
  • Guanghui Jiang
  • Xiaoer Zhao
  • Qiang Zhang
Thematic Issue
  • 43 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Characterization, Modeling, and Remediation of Karst in a Changing Environment

Abstract

Multi-model frameworks are widely used to identify the appropriate model structure for the study catchment. However, most frameworks mainly consider the process complexity of the model, and few of them consider the spatial complexity. In this paper, we investigated the appropriate model structure for a karst catchment from the aspect of spatial complexity. The purpose is twofold: (1) to investigate whether the spatial complexity is needed to simulate the spring discharge of this karst catchment and (2) to investigate whether the increase of model’s spatial complexity can make up its deficiency on the process complexity. Three simple lumped models with different process complexities were chosen to gradually increase the spatial heterogeneity of their parameters to investigate the appropriate model structure for simulating the discharge of a karst spring. The results show that the performances of three lumped models highly improve when adding the routing function to them. However, further considering the spatial parameter heterogeneity, only one model shows obvious performance improvement and other two models show limited improvement. Moreover, this model with relatively complex spatial parameter heterogeneity still shows worse performance than another lumped model. This indicates an increase of models’ spatial complexity cannot always make up their process deficiencies. The final comparison results indicated that the lumped model or their semi-lumped version with flexible process complexity is enough to simulate the discharge of this karst spring and no extra spatial complexity is needed. Our studies also indicated that the increase in spatial complexity of the model cannot always fully compensate its deficiency in process complexity.

Keywords

Lumped model Semi-distributed model Process complexity Spatial complexity Karst catchment 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by a grant from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos.: 41730856, U1503282, 41602242, 41502260) and the National Key Research and Development Program of China (NO. 2016YFC0402809).

References

  1. Adinehvand R, Raeisi E, Hartmann A (2017) A step-wise semi-distributed simulation approach to characterize a karst aquifer and to support dam construction in a data-scarce environment. J Hydrol 554:470–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Atkinson SE, Sivapalan M, Woods RA, Viney NR (2003) Dominant physical controls on hourly flow predictions and the role of spatial variability: Mahurangi catchment, New Zealand. Adv Water Resour 26(3):219–235.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0309-1708(02)00183-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bailly-Comte V, Borrell-Estupina V, Jourde H, Pistre S (2012) A conceptual semidistributed model of the Coulazou River as a tool for assessing surface water-karst groundwater interactions during flood in Mediterranean ephemeral rivers. Water Resour Res.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2010wr010072 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barrett ME, Charbeneau RJ (1997) A parsimonious model for simulating flow in a karst aquifer. J Hydrol 196(1–4):47–65.  https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-1694(96)03339-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bentura PLF, Michel C (1997) Flood routing in a wide channel with a quadratic lag-and-route method. Hydrol Sci J 42(2):169–189.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02626669709492018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beven K (1989) Changing ideas in hydrology—the case of physically-based models. J Hydrol 105(1–2):157–172.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1694(89)90101-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beven K (2012) Rainfall-runoff modelling: the primer. 15(1): 84–96Google Scholar
  8. Boyle DP et al (2001) Toward improved streamflow forecasts: value of semidistributed modeling. Water Resour Res 37(11):2749–2759CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chang Y (2015) Analysis and simulation of the hydrological process of the karst aquifer with fracture-conduit dual strcture. Phd Thesis, Nanjing University, ChinaGoogle Scholar
  10. Chang Y, Wu J, Jiang G (2015) Modeling the hydrological behavior of a karst spring using a nonlinear reservoir-pipe model. Hydrogeol J 23(5):901–914.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-015-1241-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chang Y, Wu J, Jiang G, Kang Z (2017) Identification of the dominant hydrological process and appropriate model structure of a karst catchment through stepwise simplification of a complex conceptual model. J Hydrol 548:75–87.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2017.02.050 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cholet C, Charlier JB, Moussa R, Steinmann M, Denimal S (2017) Assessing lateral flows and solute transport during floods in a conduit-flow-dominated karst system using the inverse problem for the advection–diffusion equation. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 21(7):3635–3653.  https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-3635-2017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Clark MP et al., 2008. Framework for understanding structural errors (FUSE): a modular framework to diagnose differences between hydrological models. Water Resour Res.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2007WR006735 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Coxon G, Freer J, Wagener T, Odoni NA, Clark M (2014) Diagnostic evaluation of multiple hypotheses of hydrological behaviour in a limits-of-acceptability framework for 24 UK catchments. Hydrol Process 28(25):6135–6150.  https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.10096 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Das T, Bardossy A, Zehe E, He Y (2008) Comparison of conceptual model performance using different representations of spatial variability. J Hydrol 356(1–2):106–118.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2008.04.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Eagleman, J.R., 1967. Pan Evaporation, Potential and Actual Evapotranspiration. J Appl Meteorol 6(3): 482–488.  https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0450(1967)006%3C0482:PEPAAE%3E2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Euser T et al (2013) A framework to assess the realism of model structures using hydrological signatures. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 17(5):1893–1912.  https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-17-1893-2013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Euser T, Hrachowitz M, Winsemius HC, Savenije HHG (2015) The effect of forcing and landscape distribution on performance and consistency of model structures. Hydrol Process 29(17):3727–3743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fenicia F, McDonnell JJ, Savenije HHG (2008) Learning from model improvement: on the contribution of complementary data to process understanding. Water Resour Res.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2007WR006386 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fenicia F et al (2014) Catchment properties, function, and conceptual model representation: is there a correspondence? Hydrol Process 28(4):2451–2467.  https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.9726 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fleury P, Plagnes V, Bakalowicz M (2007) Modelling of the functioning of karst aquifers with a reservoir model: Application to Fontaine de Vaucluse (South of France). J Hydrol 345(1–2):38–49.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2007.07.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ford DC, Williams P (2007) Karst hydrogeology and geomorphology. Wiley, HobokenCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Freer J, Beven K, Ambroise B (1996) Bayesian estimation of uncertainty in runoff prediction and the value of data: an application of the GLUE approach. Water Resour Res 32(7):2161–2173.  https://doi.org/10.1029/95WR03723 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gao H, Hrachowitz M, Fenicia F, Gharari S, Savenije HHG (2014) Testing the realism of a topography-driven model (FLEX-Topo) in the nested catchments of the Upper Heihe, China. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 18(5):1895–1915.  https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-18-1895-2014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ghavidelfar S, Alvankar SR, Razmkhah A (2011) Comparison of the lumped and quasi-distributed Clark runoff models in simulating flood hydrographs on a semi-arid watershed. Water Resour Manage 25(6):1775–1790.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-011-9774-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Goldscheider N, Drew D (2007) Methods in Karst hydrogeology: IAH: international contributions to hydrogeology, 26. CRC Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  27. Han J-C, Huang G-H, Zhang H, Li Z, Li Y-P (2014) Effects of watershed subdivision level on semi-distributed hydrological simulations: case study of the SLURP model applied to the Xiangxi River watershed, China. Hydrol Sci J 59(1):108–125.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2013.854368 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hartmann A, Lange J, Weiler M, Arbel Y, Greenbaum N (2012a) A new approach to model the spatial and temporal variability of recharge to karst aquifers. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 16(7):2219–2231.  https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-16-2219-2012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hartmann A et al (2012b) A multi-model approach for improved simulations of future water availability at a large Eastern Mediterranean karst spring. J Hydrol 468–469(0):130–138.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.08.024 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hartmann A et al (2013a) Testing the realism of model structures to identify karst system processes using water quality and quantity signatures. Water Resour Res 49(6):3345–3358.  https://doi.org/10.1002/wrcr.20229 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hartmann A et al (2013b) Process-based karst modelling to relate hydrodynamic and hydrochemical characteristics to system properties. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 17(8):3305–3321.  https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-17-3305-2013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hartmann A, Goldscheider N, Wagener T, Lange J, Weiler M (2014) Karst water resources in a changing world: review of hydrological modeling approaches. Rev Geophys, 52(3): 2013RG000443.  https://doi.org/10.1002/2013RG000443 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hellebrand H, Bos RVD (2008) Investigating the use of spatial discretization of hydrological processes in conceptual rainfall runoff modelling: a case study for the meso-scale. Hydrol Process 22(16):2943–2952CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hornberger GM, Beven KJ, Cosby BJ, Sappington DE (1985) Shenandoah watershed study: calibration of a topography-based, variable contributing area hydrological model to a small forested catchment. Water Resour Res 21(21):1841–1850CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hrachowitz M, Clark MP (2017) Opinions HESS: the complementary merits of competing modelling philosophies in hydrology. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci Dis 21(8):1–22Google Scholar
  36. Jakeman AJ, Hornberger GM (1993) How much complexity is warranted in a rainfall-runoff model? Water Resour Res 29(8):2637–2649.  https://doi.org/10.1029/93WR00877 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Jiang GH, Yu S, Chang Y (2011) Identification of runoff in karst drainage system using hydrochemical method (in chinese). J Jilin Univ Earth Sci Edn 41(5):1534–1541Google Scholar
  38. Jukić D, Denić-Jukić V (2009) Groundwater balance estimation in karst by using a conceptual rainfall–runoff model. J Hydrol 373(3–4):302–315.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.04.035 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kirchner JW (2006) Getting the right answers for the right reasons: linking measurements, analyses, and models to advance the science of hydrology. Water Resour Res, 42(3).  https://doi.org/10.1029/2005wr004362
  40. Kumar R, Samaniego L, Attinger S (2010) The effects of spatial discretization and model parameterization on the prediction of extreme runoff characteristics. J Hydrol 392(1):54–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lee G, Tachikawa Y, Takara K (2011) Comparison of model structural uncertainty using a multi-objective optimisation method. Hydrol Process 25(17):2642–2653.  https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.8006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lerat J et al (2012a) Do internal flow measurements improve the calibration of rainfall-runoff models? Water Resour Res 48:18.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2010wr010179 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lerat J, Perrin C, Andreassian V, Loumagne C, Ribstein P (2012b) Towards robust methods to couple lumped rainfall-runoff models and hydraulic models: a sensitivity analysis on the Illinois River. J Hydrol 418:123–135.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.09.019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Liu Z, Groves C, Yuan D, Meiman J (2004) South China Karst aquifer storm-scale hydrochemistry. Ground Water 42(4):491–499.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6584.2004.tb02617.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Moussa, R., 1996. Analytical hayami solution for the diffusive wave flood routing problem with lateral inflow. Hydrol Process 10(9): 1209–1227.  https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1085(199609)10:9%3C1209::AID-HYP380%3E3.0.CO;2-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Nijzink RC et al (2016) The importance of topography-controlled sub-grid process heterogeneity and semi-quantitative prior constraints in distributed hydrological models. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 20(3):1151–1176.  https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-20-1151-2016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Perrin C, Michel C, Andréassian V (2001) Does a large number of parameters enhance model performance? Comparative assessment of common catchment model structures on 429 catchments. J Hydrol 242(3–4):275–301.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(00)00393-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Pianosi F, Sarrazin F, Wagener T (2015) A Matlab toolbox for global sensitivity analysis. Environ Model Softw 70:80–85.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2015.04.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Reed S et al (2004) Overall distributed model intercomparison project results. J Hydrol 298(1):27–60.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2004.03.031 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Refsgaard JC, Knudsen J (1996) Operational validation and intercomparison of different types of hydrological models. Water Resour Res 32(7):2189–2202.  https://doi.org/10.1029/96wr00896 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Savenije HHG (2010) HESS Opinions “Topography driven conceptual modelling (FLEX-Topo)”. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 14(12):2681–2692.  https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-14-2681-2010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Seibert J, Rodhe A, Bishop K (2003) Simulating interactions between saturated and unsaturated storage in a conceptual runoff model. Hydrol Process 17(2):379–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Singh VP, Woolhiser DA (2002) Mathematical modeling of watershed hydrology. J Hydrol Eng 7(4):270–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Smith MB et al (2004) The distributed model intercomparison project (DMIP): motivation and experiment design. J Hydrol 298(1–4):4–26.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2004.03.040 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Tritz S, Guinot V, Jourde H (2011) Modelling the behaviour of a karst system catchment using non-linear hysteretic conceptual model. J Hydrol 397(3–4):250–262.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2010.12.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Uhlenbrook S, Roser S, Tilch N (2004) Hydrological process representation at the meso-scale: the potential of a distributed, conceptual catchment model. J Hydrol 291(3):278–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Vansteenkiste T et al., 2014. Intercomparison of five lumped and distributed models for catchment runoff and extreme flow simulation. J Hydrol 511(Suppl C): 335–349.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.01.050
  58. Vrugt JA, Robinson BA (2007) Improved evolutionary optimization from genetically adaptive multimethod search. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104(3):708–711.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0610471104 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Vrugt JA, Robinson BA, Hyman JM (2009) Self-adaptive multimethod search for global optimization in real-parameter spaces. IEEE Trans Evolut Comput 13(2):243–259.  https://doi.org/10.1109/tevc.2008.924428 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wagener T et al (2001) A framework for development and application of hydrological models. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 5(1):13–26.  https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-5-13-2001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wöhling T, Vrugt JA, Barkle GF (2008) Comparison of three multiobjective optimization algorithms for inverse modeling of vadose zone hydraulic properties. Soil Sci Soc Am J 72(2):305–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Yan C, Zhang W (2014) Effects of model segmentation approach on the performance and parameters of the hydrological simulation program—fortran (HSPF) models. Hydrol Res 45(6):893CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Yuan DX, Dai AD, Cai WT, Liu ZH, He SY, Mo XP, Zhou SY, Lao WK (1996) Karst water system of a peak cluster catchment in south china’s bare karst region and its mathematic model. Guangxi Normal University Publishing House, GuilinGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yong Chang
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jichun Wu
    • 1
  • Guanghui Jiang
    • 2
    • 3
  • Xiaoer Zhao
    • 1
  • Qiang Zhang
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Key Laboratory of Surficial Geochemistry, Department of Hydrosciences, School of Earth Sciences and EngineeringMinistry of Education, Nanjing UniversityNanjingChina
  2. 2.Key Laboratory of Karst Dynamics, Ministry of Land and Resources & GuangxiInstitute of Karst GeologyGuilinChina
  3. 3.International Karst Research Center Auspices of UNESCOGuilinChina

Personalised recommendations