A Short Review of Water Budget and Flow Models for a Lumped Catchment

  • Vyacheslav G. Rumynin
Part of the Theory and Applications of Transport in Porous Media book series (TATP, volume 26)


A rigorous and unambiguous classification of the lumped catchment (or watershed) models commonly faces objective difficulties, because similar approaches to mathematical formalization of processes with different physical nature can be used in different models. That is one of the main reasons why there is no universal method to characterize this category of the catchment models. For this review, four categories of models can be provisionally identified: (1) balance (budget) models, (2) reservoir models, (3) soil moisture accounting models (approach), and (4) combined models which synthesize some properties of the above models and empirical features of hydrological processes description. All of them, of course, are simplifications of reality and have a high degree of empiricism.


Soil Moisture Surface Runoff Soil Moisture Content Curve Number Reservoir Model 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Afrodisis S, Avraamides C, Fischbach P et al (1986) Hydrogeological and hydrochemical studies in the Troodos region, Technical report N6 in Cyprus-German geological and pedological project N 81.2224.4. Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Geological Survey Department, Nicosia, p 101Google Scholar
  2. Allen RG, Pereira LS, Raes D et al (1998) Crop evapotranspiration, guidelines for computing crop water requirements, FAO irrigation and drainage paper 56. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, RomeGoogle Scholar
  3. Alley WM (1984) On the treatment of evapotranspiration, soil moisture accounting, and aquifer recharge in monthly water balance models. Water Resour Res 20(8):1137–1149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bergström S (1992) The HBV model – its structure and applications. SMHI RH, NorrköpingGoogle Scholar
  5. Bergström S (1995) The HBV model. In: Singh VP (ed) Computer models of watershed hydrology. Water Resources Publication, Colorado, pp 443–476Google Scholar
  6. Beven KJ (2006) Rainfall-runoff modeling: introduction. In: Anderson M (ed) Encyclopedia of hydrological sciences. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  7. Boronina A, Renard P, Balderer W et al (2003) Groundwater resources in the Kouris catchment (Cyprus): data analysis and numerical modelling. J Hydrol 271:130–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boughton WC (1989) A review of the USDA SCS curve number method. Aust J Soil Res 27(3):511–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Broome P, Spigel RH (1982) A linear model of storm runoff from some urban catchments in New Zealand. J Hydrol 21(1):13–33Google Scholar
  10. Brutsaert W (1991) The formulation of evaporation from land surfaces. In: Bowles DS, O’Connell PE (eds) Recent advances in the modelling of hydrologic systems. NATO, Series C: Mathematical and physical sciences. Boston, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 345, pp 67–84Google Scholar
  11. Burnash RJC (1995) The NWS river forecast system – catchment modeling. In: Buttle JM Isotope hydrograph separations and rapid delivery of pre-event water from drainage basins. Prog Phys Hydrol 18:16–41Google Scholar
  12. Buytaert W, De Bièvre B, Wyseure G et al (2004) The use of the linear reservoir concept to quantify the impact of land use changes on the hydrology of catchments in the Ecuadorian Andes. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 8:108–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chow VT, Maidment DR, Mays LW (1988) Applied hydrology. McGraw-Hill, New York, p 572Google Scholar
  14. Ding JY (1974) Variable unit hydrograph. J Hydrol 22:53–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ding JY (2011) A measure of watershed nonlinearity: interpreting a variable instantaneous unit hydrograph model on two vastly different sized watersheds. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 15:405–423. doi: 10.5194/hess-15-405-2011
  16. Dingman SL (2002) Physical hydrology. Prentice-Hall Inc., Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  17. Diskin MH (1964) A basic study of the linearity of the rainfall-runoff process in watersheds. Thesis, University of Illinois, p 157Google Scholar
  18. Diskin MH (1973) The role of lag in a quasi-linear analysis of the surface runoff system. In: Proceedings of the second international symposium in hydrology. Fort Collins, Colorado, pp 133–144Google Scholar
  19. Duffy CJ, Gelhar LW (1985) A frequency domain approach to water quality modeling in groundwater: theory. Water Resour Res 21:1175–1184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Erickson T, Stefan HG (2007) Groundwater recharge from a changing landscape. S. Anthony Falls Laboratory, Project report 490. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, St Paul, p 112Google Scholar
  21. Farmer D, Sivapalan M, Jothityangkoon C (2003) Climate, soil, and vegetation controls upon the variability of water balance in temperate and semiarid landscapes: downward approach to water balance analysis. Water Resour Res 39(2):1035. doi: 10.1029/2001WR000328 Google Scholar
  22. Gupta HV, Sorooshian S, Hogue TS et al (2003) Advances in automatic calibration of watershed models. Calibration of watershed models. In: Duan Q, Gupta HV, Sorooshian S, Rousseau AN, Turcotte R (eds) Water science and application. AGU, Washington DC, 6, pp 9–28Google Scholar
  23. Ibrahim AB, Cordery I (1995) Estimation of recharge and runoff volumes from ungauged catchments in eastern Australia. Hydrol Sci J des Sci Hydrol 40A:499–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jowitt PW (1999) A conceptual systems model of rainfall-runoff on the Haast River. J Hydrol NZ 38(1):121–144Google Scholar
  25. Kannan N, Santhi C, Williams JR et al (2007) Development of a continuous soil moisture accounting procedure for curve number methodology and its behaviour with different evapotranspiration methods. Hydrol Process Published online in Wiley Inter Science. doi: 10.1002/hyp.6811
  26. Khan LR, Mawdsley JA (1982) Effects of land-use changes on groundwater recharge assessed using a nonlinear catchment model. In: Improvements of methods of long term prediction of variations in groundwater resources and regimes due to human activity (Proceedings of the exeter symposium) IAHS Publ 136, pp 97–106Google Scholar
  27. Kim CP, Stricker JNM, Torfs PJJF (1996) An analytical framework for the water budget of the unsaturated zone. Water Resour Res 32(12):3475–3484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Koivusalo H, Kokkonen T, Karvonen T et al (2001) Accounting for response differences in runoff events of different magnitudes. In: Ghassemi F, Post D, Sivapalan M, Vertessy R (eds) Proceedings, MODSIM: international congress on modelling and simulation-integrating models for natural resources management across disciplines, issues and scales. Canberra, Australia. [Place of publication unknown]: Modelling and Simulation Society of Australia and New Zealand Inc., pp 89–94Google Scholar
  29. Kundzewicz ZW, Napiórkowski JJ (1986) Nonlinear models of dynamic hydrology. J Hydrol Sci 31(2):163–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lascano RJ (1991) Review of models for predicting soil water balance. Soil water balance in the Sudano-SaheUan Zone (Proceedings of the Niamey workshop). IAHS Publ 199:443–458Google Scholar
  31. Maloszewski P, Stichler W, Rank D (2000) Combined application of black box models to environmental tracer data for determination of transport and hydraulic parameters in karstic aquifer of Schneealpe (Austria). In: Use of isotopes for analyses of flow and transport dynamics in groundwater systems. Results of a co-ordinated research project 1996–1999, IAEAGoogle Scholar
  32. Mederer J (2005) Groundwater resources of the Limnatis catchment in Cyprus: Application of the water balance modelling program MODBIL in an area of irrigation. Zeitschrift des Lehr- und Forschungsbereichs Hydrogeologie und Umwelt (ISSN 09309–3757) N 33:1–13Google Scholar
  33. Mederer J (2009) Water resources and dynamics of the Troodos Igneous Aquifer-system, Cyprus – balanced groundwater modelling. Doctorate Thesis. Julius-Maximilians University of Würzburg, p 146Google Scholar
  34. Michel C, Vazken A, Perrin C (2005) Soil conservation service curve number method: how to mend a wrong soil moisture accounting procedure. Water Resour Res 41(2):1–6. doi: 10.1029/2004WR003191 Google Scholar
  35. Mishra SK, Singh VP (2003) Soil Conservation Service Curve Number (SCS-CN) methodology. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht. ISBN 1-4020-1132-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Moor RJ, Bell VA (2001) Comparison of rainfall–Runoff models for flood forecaseting. Part 1. Literature review of models. R&D Technical report W241Environmental Agency, Bristol, p 94Google Scholar
  37. Nash JE (1960) A unit hydrograph study with particular reference to British catchments. Proc Inst Civil Eng 17:249–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. O’Donnell T (1960) Instantaneous unit hydrograph derivation by harmonic analysis. Int Assoc Sci Hydrol Pub 51:546–557Google Scholar
  39. Overton DE (1970) Route or convolute? Water Resour Res 6(1):43–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pedersen JT, Peters JC, Helweg OJ (1980) Hydrographs by single linear reservoir model. J Hydraulics 106(HY5):837–852Google Scholar
  41. Rumynin VG (2011) Subsurface solute transport models and case histories (with applications to radionuclide migration), vol 25, Series: Theory and applications of transport in porous media. Springer, Dordrecht, p 133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sahu RK, Mishra SK, Eldho TI et al (2007) An advanced soil moisture accounting procedure for SCS curve number method. Hydrol Process 21:2872–2881CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Schaake JC, Chunzhen L (1989) Development and application of simple water balance models to understand the relationship between climate and water resources. In: New Directions for Surface Water Modeling Proceedings of the Baltimore Symposium IAHS Publ N181. Baltimore, MDGoogle Scholar
  44. Shamseldin AY, Nash JE (1998) The geomorphological unit hydrograph: a critical review. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 2(1):1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sheffer NA (2009) Variable scale recharge measurement and modelling using the hydrometeorological DReAM. PhD thesis, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, p 111Google Scholar
  46. Sheffer NA, Dafny E, Gvirtzman H et al (2010) Hydrometeorological daily recharge assessment model (DREAM) for the Western Mountain Aquifer, Israel: Model application and effects of temporal patterns. Water Resour Res. doi: 10.1029/2008WR007607 Google Scholar
  47. Shestakov VM, Pozdniakov SP (2003) Geohydrology. IKC “Academkniga”, p 176Google Scholar
  48. Shi Z-H, Chen L-D, Fang N-F et al (2009) Research on the SCS-CN initial abstraction ratio using rainfall-runoff event analysis in the Three Gorges Area. China CATENA 77(1):1–7. doi: 10.1016/j.catena.2008.11.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Snyder WM, Mills WC, Stephens JC (1970) A method of derivation on nonconstant watershed response functions. Water Resour Res 6(1):261–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Stadelbacher V (2007) Water balance modeling of a meso-scale mountainous catchment in Cyprus – process analysis and climate change impact. Diploma thesis. Institut fur Hydrologie Albert-Ludwigs-Universitat Freiburg i Br, p 98Google Scholar
  51. Subramanya K (2008) Engineering hydorlogy. Tata McGraw-Hall Education Publ. Company Limited, New Delhi, р 435Google Scholar
  52. Thornthwaite CW (1948) An approach toward a rational classification of climate. Geograph Rev 38(1):55–94Google Scholar
  53. Thornthwaite CW, Mather JR (1955) The water balance. Publications in Climatology, Drexel Institute of Technology, Centerton, New Jersey, vol VIII(1)Google Scholar
  54. Udluft P, Dünkeloh A, Mederer J et al (2004) Water balances for catchments and the whole island. GRC-Project Report T 6/7, Nicosia, Geological Survey Department of Cyprus, 363 pGoogle Scholar
  55. USDA (1986) Natural Resources Conservation Service. Technical Release 55. Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds, TR-55, Washington, DC, p 164Google Scholar
  56. Vaze J, Jordan P, Beecham R (2012) Guidelines for rainfall-runoff modelling: towards best practice model application. Water Cooperative Research Centre, San Francisco, p 47Google Scholar
  57. Wood EF, Sivapalan M, Beven K (1990) Similarity and scale in catchment storm response. Rev Geophys 28(1):1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Xu C-Y, Singh VP (2004) Review on regional water resources assessment models under stationary and changing climate, Water resource management 18. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Amsterdam, pp 591–612Google Scholar
  59. Zagana E, Kuells C, Udluft P et al (2007) Methods of groundwater recharge estimation in eastern Mediterranean – a water balance model application in Greece, Cyprus and Jordan. Hydrol Process 21:2405–2414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Zondervan JG (1978) Modelling urban runoff – a quasilinear approach. Agric Res Rep 874. ISBN 90 220 0665 4. Centre for Agricultural Pub. and Documentation, Wageningen, NetherlandsGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vyacheslav G. Rumynin
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute of Environmental GeologyThe Russian Academy of SciencesSaint PetersburgRussia
  2. 2.Institute of Earth SciencesSaint Petersburg State UniversitySaint PetersburgRussia

Personalised recommendations