The soil conservation service curve number (SCS-CN) model is a widely utilized tool for estimating runoff and relies on two empirical parameters: the CN and the ratio of initial abstraction to maximum potential retention (λ). The determination of the parameters is via the empirical method or calculations based on actual data. However, few studies address the effect of rainfall on parameter selection, and collecting runoff data for model analysis is challenging. This study, taking the Nemor River Basin as the research region, investigates how the combination of CN and λ impacts the model in different rainfall conditions. Using runoff plots and reanalysis product data, the study reveals that: (1) the calculated methods outperformed the empirical method, increasing the Nash Sutcliffe efficiency coefficient from 0.34 to 0.65. (2) A higher λ value (0.2 compared to 0.02) reduces runoff and smoothes the runoff curve, which becomes less obvious with increasing CN. (3) The CN values exhibit a non-monotonic relationship with rainfall, initially decreasing before rising, highlighting the need to adjust the CN based on rainfall. Moreover, the SCS-CN model's performance with reanalysis data approximates that with actual data, confirming the viability of reanalysis datasets in this region.

  • An approach combining sub-daily perspective and hydrological models was utilized for analysis.

  • The CN value should vary with rainfall rather than being a fixed value.

  • The rainfall-runoff data from the reanalysis dataset can be utilized to investigate the influence of the CN and λ parameters in the SCS-CN model.

The prediction of runoff holds particular significance within the domains of soil conservation and water resource management. An accurate simulation is the basis of runoff prediction in rational planning and management of water resources in any basin. A multitude of models are employed for runoff prediction. Among them, the more prevalent ones are the hydrological models that consider hydrological processes (Wang et al. 2021). In recent years, along with the advancement of computer technology, numerous studies have utilized machine learning for predictions (Adnan et al. 2020; Gu et al. 2020; Yang et al. 2023). However, both hydrological models and machine learning models typically entail more effort. The former demands detailed geographical data for the study area, whereas the latter has a higher requirement for data volume. Therefore, the conceptual model featuring a simple structure still has its scope and value. The conceptual models, represented by the soil conservation service curve number (SCS-CN) model (Calero Mosquera et al. 2022), are constructed based on the fundamental principles governing hydrological phenomena and incorporate empirical formulas. It generalizes the physical basis of the basin and then combines empirical formulae to approximate its hydrological processes.
Figure 1

Study region information. (a) The location of the region; (b) distributions of slope, land use types, and soil types in the study region.

Figure 1

Study region information. (a) The location of the region; (b) distributions of slope, land use types, and soil types in the study region.

Close modal
The SCS-CN is an empirical model obtained by the former United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service (U.S.D.A-SCS) based on the collection, collation, analysis, and research of rainfall–runoff data of small watersheds in different regions of the country. This model is widely used due to its simple structure, clear physical concepts, and minimal parameter requirements (Kastridis & Stathis 2020). It is based on the principle of water balance, as shown in Equation (1), and is founded on two key hypotheses. One hypothesis is that the ratio of the actual infiltration maintained on the surface to the potential infiltration of the soil is equal to the ratio of the actual runoff depth to the possible maximum runoff depth, as expressed in Equation (2). Moreover, the initial loss of precipitation is proportional to the potential infiltration of the soil, as written in the following equation:
(1)
(2)
(3)
where P is the total precipitation, Ia is the initial precipitation loss (mm), F is the cumulative infiltration (mm), Q is the direct runoff (mm), λ is the initial loss rate, and S is the potential maximum retention after the beginning of the runoff (mm), which is mainly determined by the geographical and climatic conditions of the study region. The final expression for the SCS-CN model may be obtained as:
(4)
The S-value was determined using the following equation:
(5)

In the conventional approaches, λ is established as a constant value of 0.2 (Ajmal et al. 2020; Caletka et al. 2020). The CN value, as a dimensionless parameter, is employed to mirror the attributes of the underlying terrain in the basin prior to precipitation. These attributes are contingent upon soil type, antecedent soil moisture, land use, slope, and other determining factors. The CN values can be obtained from the relevant manuals, which take into account the soil type and other influencing factors. The primary advantage of the SCS-CN model is its reliance solely on CN values. However, this dependance results in a high sensitivity of the CN values (Golding et al. 1997), meaning that the SCS-CN model can only be adjusted for different research fields through changes in the CN value. Even slight variations in the CN value can lead to significant disparities in simulation outcomes. Therefore, numerous researchers have found that the traditional approaches exhibit limited precision in simulating complex systems.

The antecedent soil moisture condition (AMC) divides soil into three states: AMC Ⅰ (dry), AMC Ⅱ (average), and AMC Ⅲ (wet). The relationship between the CN values in these three conditions can be described by the following equations:
(6)
(7)

In order to determine the AMC of a rainfall event used in a runoff prediction, 5-day antecedent rainfall (P5) was used as follows: AMC I if P5 < 35.56 mm in the growing season or P5 < 12.7 mm in the dormant season, AMC II if P5 between 35.56 and 53.34 mm in the growing season or 12.70–27.94 mm in the dormant season, and AMC III if P5 > 53.34 mm in the growing season or P5 > 27.94 mm in the dormant season (Kumar et al. 2021). However, there is no general agreement on the selection of rainfall values to determine the AMC level (Bhuyan et al. 2003; Thomas et al. 2021).

Currently, the research on the SCS-CN model mainly focuses on three points. First, the model is localized, and the empirical value is modified to a suitable value for a specific region. For example, da Silva Cruz et al. (2022) confirmed the CN value of the Amazon River Basin and forecasted the future flood situation of the basin. However, besides the CN value, λ is also an important empirical parameter affecting the value of the direct runoff. Consequently, some researchers have modified both λ and CN values to improve the accuracy of the SCS-CN model (Liu et al. 2021). Furthermore, this study showed that the model was applied to the study of runoff in urban areas. Owing to the limitations of the SCS-CN parameters, the model may not be able to complete the simulation task well in some research areas. Therefore, some researchers have focused on improving the model itself. For example, Walega et al. (2020) verified the accuracy of two improved SCS-CN models by comparing peak and direct runoff in three forestry areas in the southeast of the United States. These improved models can be understood as refinements of traditional models. They added a new parameter, early moisture M, in some complex conditions. Jiao et al. (2015) proposed a parameter of potential Ia to determine the maximum precipitation before the generation of runoff. This significantly improves the accuracy of the simulation compared to the traditional SCS-CN model. In addition, some researchers have integrated the SCS-CN model with the geographic information system (GIS) to expand the applicable scope of the model (Jethva et al. 2021; Saha et al. 2022).

Runoff prediction at the sub-daily time step is a vital and challenging issue. The SCS-CN model, being an empirical model of simple structure, lacks the requisite structure to tackle it. Nevertheless, precisely because of this, the model can serve as a component of other models, thereby facilitating sub-daily time step prediction. The stormwater management model (SWMM) is a widely used hydrological simulation model that can use the original SCS-CN model as the infiltration calculation principle. The SWMM model demonstrates outstanding performance in both urban and non-urban areas. For example, Li (2021) took a watershed in Shaanxi Province in China as a research object and explored the relationship between land consolidation, vegetation coverage, and runoff in the region. Vidya (2021) combined the SWMM and SCS-CN models to estimate farm runoff after rainstorms in non-urban areas. The SWMM model can also combine the specified study areas with GIS for simulation. For example, Hussain et al. (2022) explored the impact of land use and climate change on the performance of a rainwater sewer system. However, it is worth noting that although the SWMM can choose the SCS-CN model as the basis for infiltration calculation, the SCS-CN model employed in SWMM is different from Equation (4) and can be represented as follows:
(8)
(9)
where P represents the amount of rainfall and Smax denotes the maximum moisture storage capacity of the soil (in inches), respectively.

The classical form of the SCS-CN model is represented by Equation (8). In the current model, PIa is utilized instead of P. In other words, the current model takes into account the influence of soil and other factors on runoff during rainfall and reflects the infiltration loss by means of λ. However, this does not imply that the infiltration losses are disregarded in the SWMM. On the contrary, the SWMM relies on surface permeability, sub-catchment areas, and other parameters input into the model to calculate the infiltration losses of the corresponding sub-catchment, rather than using a single parameter (Rossman & Huber 2016). In fact, the single λ will make Ia a fixed value that will cause errors in the prediction of the model results (Jiao et al. 2015). The simulations using the SWMM can avoid this phenomenon. Consequently, the simulation in the SWMM model merely focuses on the impact of the CN value on the runoff outcomes, without considering the influence of λ.

Another challenging issue lies in the quantity of data. In the case of the SCS-CN model and even some other studies related to rainfall–runoff, the quantity of data is typically several dozen or even fewer. This is because the surface rainfall–runoff data are challenging to measure, and it is not easy to guarantee the data quality due to factors such as terrain and vegetation. The second Modern-Era Retrospective analysis for Research and Applications version 2 (MERRA-2) is a reanalysis data product from The Global Modeling and Assimilation Office (GMAO) affiliated with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Reanalysis data products are based on the assimilation of a vast number of in situ and remote sensing observations into an atmospheric general circulation model and provide global, sub-daily estimates of atmospheric and land surface conditions across several decades (Reichle et al. 2017). In the regions lacking observations, significant advancements have been made in this field of MERRA-2 applications (Christensen et al. 2019; Baba et al. 2021; Ceppi et al. 2022).

In this study, the Nemor River Basin, located in the black soil region of northeastern China, is chosen as the research area. This basin is characterized by a flat terrain, exhibiting minimal topographical disparities among different regions, and the pattern of land use is dominated by cultivated land, which is suitable for employing the SCS-CN model. Therefore, it is necessary to conduct research on the model parameters for this study area. As mentioned above, when employing the SCS-CN model, the first step is to ascertain the empirical coefficient based on the characteristics of the study area, and further utilization of the model requires a more profound analysis. However, the limited number of study samples and the daily scale make an in-depth analysis challenging. Therefore, it is necessary to propose suitable parameters for the study region and determine the influence of λ and CN values on the SCS-CN model. The main purposes of this paper are to (1) determine the calculated and empirical values of CN and λ in the study area by analyzing the rainfall–runoff events, (2) investigate the influence of varying CN and λ combinations on the results of SCS-CN models, and (3) utilize the SWMM to validate runoff at a sub-daily time step and assess the impact of CN variations on the runoff curve.

Study area

The research region was the Nemor River Basin, with an area of 377.52 km2, located in Nehe City at 125.5°E 48.0°N (Figure 1). The study region is located in the hilly transitional zone between the Lesser Khingan Mountains and Songnen Plain. The terrain is high in the east and low in the west. The Nemor River flows from west to east, passing through Nehe City and merging into the Nenjiang River. The annual precipitation is 500–600 mm, and rainfall normally occurs from July to September each year. One challenge in runoff analysis lies in the quantity of data. Owing to the difficulties associated with monitoring, the amount of data is restricted and the quality is rather inferior. Therefore, this study combines the runoff plot data and reanalysis data. The reanalysis data are from MERRA-2 (GMAO 2015a,,2015b, 2015c), which has an accuracy of 0.625 × 0.5°. The values in the dataset represent the average values within the region. The runoff plot data were collected from the runoff plot at the Keshan Farm weather station (125°23′8″E 48°18′35″N). The Keshan Farm is situated at the basin outlet. This dataset is employed to represent the runoff measurements within the basin.

The study region is in a cool climate zone, characterized by drought and wind in spring, high temperature and rain in summer, rapid cooling in autumn with an early frost period, and a long and snowy winter, which is cold and dry. The annual average temperature has been 3 °C, reaching 2.1 °C in the past decade. The extreme maximum temperature can reach 31 °C, and the minimum temperature can reach −30 °C. The final frost period was mid-May, the first frost period was mid-September, and the frost-free period lasted ∼120 days. The annual precipitation was ∼203.9 mm in the previous year, accounting for 43.8% of the total precipitation from May to September. The rainfall distribution accounted for 30.2, 45.8, 24, and 0.04% in spring, summer, autumn, and winter, respectively. Because of the high proportion of agricultural land, the Nemor basin is an important grain production base in Northeast China, with soybeans, corn, and potatoes as the main crops. In some farms of the basin, non-urban land, such as cultivated and forested land, accounts for nearly 90% of the total land area (Xing 2017).

Data sources

Table 1 shows the sources of the data used in this study. The meteorological data obtained by reanalysis data come from the atmospheric reanalysis dataset of MERRA-2, whose rainfall data have been shown to perform well in the Hulunbuir region, which is adjacent to the study area (Qu et al. 2022). In addition to the reanalysis dataset, the data of the runoff plot in the Keshan Farm weather station were selected as the supplementary verification (Table 2). The runoff plot of the weather station is located at the drainage outlet of the basin. Owing to the long winters in the study region, the precipitation data from May to October every year were selected for this study to exclude the impact of snowfall. We selected 27 precipitation events from 2020 to 2022 as model parameters. The selection of precipitation events should meet the following criteria (Hawkins et al. 2002): (1) storm events that exclude discontinuous precipitation; (2) the peak flow rate of the process line should be higher than 0.2 m3/s; (3) small precipitation incidents were removed, and the antecedent runoff condition in the watershed should be average or higher, correspondingly ARC II or III. This was to avoid the influence of small storms on the deviation of high curves. (4) Uniform spatial distribution of precipitation within the watershed.

Table 1

The data of the present study

CategoryNameData sourcesApplication
Rainfall, runoff, and evaporation data obtained by reanalysis data tavg1_2d_flx_Nx dataset, tavg1_2d_rad_Nx dataset, and tavg1_2d_lnd_Nx dataset of the second MERRA-2 NASA's Goddard Earth Sciences Data and Information Services Center (GES DISC) Optimization and verification analysis of the SCS-CN model 
Rainfall and runoff data obtained by monitoring site Keshan Farm weather station runoff monitoring plots Verification the analysis 
DEM data GDEMV2 30M Geospatial Data Cloud Division of sub-catchment in the SWMM model 
Land use data FROM_GLC http://data.ess.tsinghua.edu.cn/ Determination of sub-catchment parameters in the SWMM model 
CategoryNameData sourcesApplication
Rainfall, runoff, and evaporation data obtained by reanalysis data tavg1_2d_flx_Nx dataset, tavg1_2d_rad_Nx dataset, and tavg1_2d_lnd_Nx dataset of the second MERRA-2 NASA's Goddard Earth Sciences Data and Information Services Center (GES DISC) Optimization and verification analysis of the SCS-CN model 
Rainfall and runoff data obtained by monitoring site Keshan Farm weather station runoff monitoring plots Verification the analysis 
DEM data GDEMV2 30M Geospatial Data Cloud Division of sub-catchment in the SWMM model 
Land use data FROM_GLC http://data.ess.tsinghua.edu.cn/ Determination of sub-catchment parameters in the SWMM model 
Table 2

The events of monitoring plot

DateRainfall (mm)Runoff (mm)The calculated CN (λ= 0.02)The calculated CN (λ = 0.2)
23 June 2022 20.9 6.1 70 25 
3 August 2023 36.2 5.8 62 67 
11 August 2023 30.6 4.3 67 60 
14 August 2023 10.6 1.5 84 21 
21 August 2023 81.2 41.1 77 51 
9 September 2023 40.4 12.5 75 46 
DateRainfall (mm)Runoff (mm)The calculated CN (λ= 0.02)The calculated CN (λ = 0.2)
23 June 2022 20.9 6.1 70 25 
3 August 2023 36.2 5.8 62 67 
11 August 2023 30.6 4.3 67 60 
14 August 2023 10.6 1.5 84 21 
21 August 2023 81.2 41.1 77 51 
9 September 2023 40.4 12.5 75 46 

Research methods

Methods of determining the CN value

The relationship between average annual permeability and rainfall can be obtained from multiyear rainfall–runoff data in the research region. The runoff component can then be used to determine the relationship between Ia in this watershed and runoff. Next, Equation (3) was utilized to calculate the λ values of each event correspondingly to each event and then obtain a representative λ according to the arithmetic average method. The arithmetic average method was also used to calculate the CN values. The main steps were to calculate the corresponding S-value to each measured rainfall and runoff data point according to Equation (4), then calculate the CN value corresponding to each S -value from Equation (5), and then average the CN value. The CN value calculated using the average arithmetic value was taken as the suitable value. Two modeling methods were used as follows. To compare the accuracy between the SCS-CN model with new parameters and the empirical parameters, two methods were used as follows:

  • Method (1): The SCS-CN model with the calculated λ and CN values.

  • Method (2): The SCS-CN model with empirical λ and CN values.

In SWMM modeling, the process is as follows: First, the input and processed digital elevation model (DEM) data from ArcGIS were used to divide the sub-catchments and obtain the area and average slope. Subsequently, according to the data on soil type and land use, the parameters, including Manning and permeability coefficients in the area, were specified. The CN value used in the calculated value method is obtained by calculating the rainfall value. The empirical value method derives the CN value based on geographical information and rainfall conditions.

Model evaluation

The Nash Sutcliffe efficiency coefficient (NSE), root mean square error (RMSE), and deterministic coefficient R2 (Baltas et al. 2007; Masayuki et al. 2018) are used to quantify the accuracy of the results. In general, it is widely acknowledged that the acceptable range for Nash efficiency (NSE) should exceed 0.65 and the R2 value should surpass 0.6. Moreover, it is generally believed that the closer the RMSE is to 0, the higher the model accuracy. The formulas for these evaluation parameters are provided in Equations (10)–(12). In addition, a t-test is used to analyze the impact of rainfall magnitude on model accuracy. Data analyses is performed using Excel and statistical product and service solutions (SPSS), and Origin is used for plotting.
(10)
(11)
(12)
where and are the measured values at time t and the simulated value at time t, respectively, is the mean measured value, and is the mean simulated value.

Parameters determination of the SCS-CN model

The maximum potential water storage (S) in the watershed was determined using daily observation data of the rainfall of the study region from May to October every year from 2020 to 2022. We selected 27 typical rainfall events as the basis for the derivation (Figure 2) and referred to (Kashif et al. 2023) and (Nathan & McMahon 1990), who determined that 0.925 was the selected parameter for base-flow segmentation. We then calculated the runoff components and determined the relationship between Ia, rainfall, and watershed runoff. The λ corresponding to each rainfall event can be derived by dividing Ia by S (Equation (3)).
Figure 2

Rainfall, runoff, and evaporation of selected events.

Figure 2

Rainfall, runoff, and evaporation of selected events.

Close modal

The study region demonstrates that F accounts for approximately 75.9% of the average rainfall, as calculated. Thus, Equation (1) determined that the relationship between the Ia of the watershed and the rainfall–runoff is Ia = 0.241P-Q. The Ia and S values corresponding to each rainfall event were derived based on the rainfall–runoff data collected during the study period. According to the analysis of 27 rainstorm events based on the rainfall–runoff process, it was observed that there existed variations in the λ value among different rainstorms within the watershed, with a majority of values being concentrated around 0.02. Among these values, the minimum was 0.011, the maximum was 0.021, the mean was 0.019, and the median was 0.020, respectively. The λ value remained unaffected by the rainfall; thus, the final value of λ was 0.02, consistent with that reported by Ajmal et al. (2015).

When λ was 0.02, the relationship with the S, P, and Q values can be derived from Equation (8):
(13)
Figure 3 shows the calculated CN values of the events. The maximum CN value was 84, and the precipitation of the event was 13.17 mm; meanwhile, the minimum CN value was 43, and the corresponding precipitation was 25.4 mm. The mean CN value was 67 (95% confidence interval: 64, 69). It can be seen that the precipitation and the CN values do not have a linear relationship. Given the consideration of event selection, the influence of soil moisture unevenness on the outcomes was minimized, employing an average CN value of 67 in Method (1).
Figure 3

The CN value corresponding to each precipitation event.

Figure 3

The CN value corresponding to each precipitation event.

Close modal

Method (2) is an empirical value method where λ is 0.2. The CN value refers to the experienced manual (Gironás et al. 2010) and the research results of other researchers (Jiang 2017; Xiuquan & Haoming 2019), taking into account that 90% of the research region is black soil farmland with an empirical value of 82.

Six rainfall events from the monitoring plot were used, and the information is shown in Table 2. For this set of data, the CN is calculated using the same method mentioned above. The results showed the mean of CN 72, which is in proximity to the result calculated from the reanalysis dataset. It can also be observed that when λ is set as 0.2 to calculate the CN value, there is a significant difference between this value and the one calculated according to the reanalysis data. Particularly, when the CN value is in small rainfall events (with rainfall less than 30 mm), runoff should not be generated. Hence, the value of λ should be 0.02.

The results of the SCS-CN model after optimizing CN and λ at a daily time step

A total of 169 events from June to September 2020–2022 and 76 events from the same period in 2018–2019 were used to validate the model. Figure 4 illustrates the status of the evaluation coefficients for both the calculated value model and the empirical value model within the research time period. Through calculation, the NSE of the calculated value method is determined to be 0.65, R2 is found to be 0.7, and RMSE is found to be 1.45 for the rainfall event in 2018–2019, indicating a satisfactory simulation. However, when using empirical values, the NSE of the SCS-CN model dropped to 0.14 with an R2 of only 0.34 and RMSE of 4.03, suggesting a poor simulation effect. However, the result of the validation is quite different in the period of 2020–2022. The empirical value method's NSE is 0.89, with an R2 value of 0.93 and an RMSE value of 2.47, while the calculated value method yielded an NSE of value 0.95, an R2 value of 0.92, and an RMSE value of 1.42. During this period, the evaluation coefficients of the two models exhibited no substantial difference.
Figure 4

Evaluation index of the calculated value model and empirical value model.

Figure 4

Evaluation index of the calculated value model and empirical value model.

Close modal
Figures 5 and 6 show the comparison of the two model results. No runoff is supposed to occur when P < λS. Hence, the events of rainfall with a magnitude lower than 11.5 mm are excluded from the empirical value model. For the sake of ease of observation, precipitation levels were categorized from minimal to substantial to facilitate comparison of actual runoff outcomes under diverse precipitation conditions with those simulated by the two methods. The performance of the SCS-CN model employing empirical parameters generally demonstrates a marked decrement when compared to its counterpart utilizing calculated parameters. For events influenced by AMC, it can be observed that Method (2) demonstrates a significantly higher sensitivity to changes in moisture conditions, resulting in a correct reduction trend. However, the method also exhibits numerical deviations, leading to a certain degree of inaccuracy.
Figure 5

Simulation of precipitation events in 2018–2019. (a) Simulation of precipitation events from 3 to 20 mm. (b) Simulation of precipitation events above 20 mm.

Figure 5

Simulation of precipitation events in 2018–2019. (a) Simulation of precipitation events from 3 to 20 mm. (b) Simulation of precipitation events above 20 mm.

Close modal
Figure 6

Simulation of precipitation events in 2020–2022. (a) Simulation of precipitation events from 3 to 20 mm. (b) Simulation of precipitation events above 20 mm.

Figure 6

Simulation of precipitation events in 2020–2022. (a) Simulation of precipitation events from 3 to 20 mm. (b) Simulation of precipitation events above 20 mm.

Close modal
The most notable aspect is that the curves of the two models significantly oscillate. This is because the events in Figures 5 and 6 are sorted according to the sequence of rainfall amounts rather than the chronological order. Before the occurrence of the events indicated by some oscillation points, continuous rainfall or continuous drought situations might exist. Thus, the CN value is adjusted based on the AMC, thereby causing obvious fluctuations in the predicted curves. However, the adjustment of the CN value fails to bring a completely beneficial effect to the model. For the empirical value method, the adjustment of the CN value caused by AMC brings extremely intense oscillations to the curve, which severely affects the accuracy of the model. In contrast, the adjustment of the CN value in the calculation method model is relatively moderate, especially within the period of 2018–2019 (Figure 5). Furthermore, it is notable that, in this research, there are numerous small rainfall events of approximately 10 mm. Based on the assumption of the SCS-CN model, the empirical value model completely neglects the rainfall events below this magnitude. Whereas, in the calculation method, due to the smaller λ and CN, it is capable of making predictions for these light rainfall events. As shown in Figure 7, rainfall–runoff within the research period is presented in chronological order. However, the overestimation of runoff by the empirical value model is more obvious. Therefore, taking the correlation coefficient R2 as an example, a sample t-test is conducted to examine the impact of heavy rainfall events on model accuracy. The results are shown in Table 3.
Table 3

T-test analysis of the impact of rainfall >30 mm on model performance

GroupMean valueStandard deviationT-valuep-value
The calculation method model 0.92 0.03 t(4) = −7.68 0.02 
The calculation method model (without >30 mm rainfall) 0.64 0.1   
The empirical value model 0.91 0.04 t(4) = −11.32 0.00 
The empirical value model (without > 30 mm rainfall) 0.57 0.07   
GroupMean valueStandard deviationT-valuep-value
The calculation method model 0.92 0.03 t(4) = −7.68 0.02 
The calculation method model (without >30 mm rainfall) 0.64 0.1   
The empirical value model 0.91 0.04 t(4) = −11.32 0.00 
The empirical value model (without > 30 mm rainfall) 0.57 0.07   
Figure 7

Comparison of rainfall–runoff of different models in chronological order.

Figure 7

Comparison of rainfall–runoff of different models in chronological order.

Close modal

It is evident that there is a significant difference between the model results calculated for all events and those excluding heavy rainfall events (p < 0.05), suggesting that heavy rainfall events enhance the accuracy of the model. Furthermore, heavy rainfall events appear to have a more substantial positive impact on the accuracy of the empirical value model. In other words, for predicting heavy rainfall events, using the empirical value model with a higher CN value yields more accurate results.

The simulation of the SCS-CN model at sub-daily time step

In Figure 8, three rainfall events are employed for SWMM modeling to serve as sub-daily model validation. The rainfall magnitudes of the three events increase sequentially. Figure 8(a) displays the outcome of event 2,022.6.23: This event represents a rainstorm with a precipitation of 30.66 mm. In the calculated value method, the R2 value stands at 0.89, the NSE rating is 0.97, and the RMSE is 0.008. In the empirical value method, the R2 value stands at 0.69, the NSE rating is 0.29, and the RMSE is 0.03. The calculation method demonstrates a proficient performance in simulating runoff generation and dissipation. In the case of the empirical value method, it has been observed that the runoff performance exhibits a robust response during the initial half of precipitation; nevertheless, a sudden surge in runoff occurs during the latter half, followed by an abrupt decline, which notably deviates from the actual situation. The storm events were examined, as illustrated in Figure 8(b) and 8(c). In the event 2,020.9.3 (Figure 8(b)), the precipitation amounted to 67.17 mm. In the calculated value method, the R2 value stands at 0.73, the NSE rating is 0.48, and the RMSE is 0.75. In the empirical value method, the R2 value stands at 0.76, the NSE rating is 0.67, and the RMSE is 0.65. The primary distinction between the two methods lies in their runoff generation processes and peak values. In terms of the total runoff value, the calculation method is better, but the runoff peak value obtained from the empirical value method closely approximates the actual value, whereas the calculation method significantly underestimates it. Figure 8(c) is the 2,020.8.2 event, which had the largest precipitation (84.9 mm) during the entire study period. In the calculated value method, the R2 value stands at 0.92, the NSE rating is 0.55, and the RMSE is 0.47. In the empirical value method, the R2 value stands at 0.92, the NSE rating is 0.83, and the RMSE is 0.37. Although both methods demonstrate an acceptable result, their peak values exhibit underestimation in comparison to actual measurements, and this situation becomes pronounced with the increase in rainfall, especially in Figure 8(c) where neither of the two models can attain the expected runoff value. It is also evident that, for the SWMM model in this study region, the runoff prediction of the two models for light rain events is superior to that under heavy rain events.
Figure 8

Comparison of runoff curves under moderate rain events: (a) 23 June 2022: comparison of runoff curves. (b) 3 September 2020: comparison of runoff curves. (c) 2 August 2020: comparison of runoff curves.

Figure 8

Comparison of runoff curves under moderate rain events: (a) 23 June 2022: comparison of runoff curves. (b) 3 September 2020: comparison of runoff curves. (c) 2 August 2020: comparison of runoff curves.

Close modal

In the validation of the daily and the sub-daily steps, it can be observed that the result of the calculated value model typically exhibits superior performance compared to the empirical one. However, particularly as the amount of rainfall increases, the calculated value model demonstrates a poor performance in some of the events. More profoundly, this phenomenon indicates that the accuracy of the model depends not only on the CN and λ but also on the rainfall value.

The influence of CN and λ on runoff simulation

In Section 3.2, notwithstanding the sharp fluctuations in the runoff curves caused by the influence of AMC, it can still be discerned that the predicted runoff values of the two models are disparate, and the slopes of the curves are also dissimilar. The CN value, λ, and rainfall simultaneously determine the runoff curve. To delineate how the three elements exert an influence on the outcomes, Figure 9 presents the predicted runoff values of the model under diverse combinations of CN and λ values and various rainfall magnitudes. Under the same CN value, a large λ tends to result in higher runoff values; especially when the CN value is relatively small, this phenomenon is more pronounced. This phenomenon leads to the fact that the same model parameters may behave differently under different rainfall conditions, for instance, overestimating the result below a certain rainfall but underestimating the result above that rainfall (Mishra & Singh 2004). Another aspect is that, as depicted in Figure 9, a low λ and CN value result in the model being unable to disregard the runoff generation under small rainfall, thereby causing the runoff curve to be more inclined. Furthermore, as the CN value increases, the rainfall–runoff relationship approaches linearity.
Figure 9

The variation of rainfall–runoff with different λ and CN values: (a) CN = 40; (b) CN = 50; (c) CN = 60; (d) CN = 70; (e) CN = 80; (f) CN = 90.

Figure 9

The variation of rainfall–runoff with different λ and CN values: (a) CN = 40; (b) CN = 50; (c) CN = 60; (d) CN = 70; (e) CN = 80; (f) CN = 90.

Close modal
Figure 10

Nonlinear regression of rainfall value versus CN value.

Figure 10

Nonlinear regression of rainfall value versus CN value.

Close modal

The influence of CN on runoff simulation at sub-daily time step

In moderate rainfall events, the SWMM model with a high CN value demonstrates good performance during the initial rainfall period. However, as the rainfall progresses, the decline in runoff values is not in a regular pattern. The reasons for this can be inferred from the daily time step simulation. Under the high CN value, the SCS-CN model exhibits inaccuracies in estimating surface infiltration during light rain events and tends to overestimate runoff, resulting in higher values than actual measurements. Even though the SCS-CN model may provide accurate results for a rainfall intensity of 20 mm, its performance is compromised when considering inter-catchment influences within SWMM. Particularly under continuous rainfall conditions, the model's calculations quickly saturate the surface soil, leading to significant errors. For the simulation of heavy rain events, it is rather challenging to assess which model performs better, as the performance of the models differs in response to various rainfall events. Therefore, under certain CN values, the model may overestimate the runoff of light rainfall events, but the prediction for heavy rainfall events may be accurate. In other words, the SCS-CN method often performs poorly in the simulations of continuous rainfall because the CN value treats the model's flow-producing capacity as a fixed value, but as the rainfall continues, its flow-producing capacity decreases with the saturation of water in the soil, resulting in an error. In fact, the same problem exists with daily rainfall (Grimaldi et al. 2013; Ogden et al. 2017; Wang & Chu 2023). This implies that different CN values should be selected according to the rainfall amount rather than a fixed value. Therefore, on the basis of the events selected in Section 3.1, we calculated the CN values corresponding to all events during the period from 2020 to 2022. Moreover, these CN values were fitted via nonlinear regression analysis.

It can be seen from the figure that as the rainfall value increases, the CN value does not increase monotonically. At values below 16.3 mm, the CN value demonstrates a decreasing tendency as the rainfall amount rises. However, beyond 16.3 mm, the CN value ascends with the increase in rainfall. The pattern accounts for why the calculated value model performed relatively well in the rainfall event of 67 mm but underestimated the runoff in the heavy rainfall event of 84 mm. Even both models show such a result (Figure 10) since an overly large rainfall amount demands a larger CN value for the model. Similarly, the situation also occurs in the result of the runoff plot dataset. Although the CN value calculated from the monitoring point is generally higher than that obtained from the reanalysis dataset, the variation law still exhibits the same trend with the increase in rainfall. The Nemor River Basin has an evenly distributed rainfall and a flat terrain, lacking topographies such as valleys and hills that can significantly affect surface runoff. Therefore, in the process of using the SCS-CN model to predict runoff, the regional average CN value assumes a crucial role. Consequently, the CN value must be accurately determined rather than simply using a fixed value for a simplistic generalization.

Determining CN and λ is the prerequisite of applying the SCS-CN model, and understanding how CN and λ influence the model outcomes is also a prerequisite for enhancing the model. In this study, the calculated CN value of 67 and λ value of 0.02 from the rainfall–runoff events are optimal for the study region as they provide much higher accuracy than the results obtained under the empirical method with CN value of 82 and λ value of 0.2. This study also reveals the influence of parameter selection on the predicted values of the model. Regarding λ, a large λ will result in a smaller outcome than a small λ. Concerning the selection of the CN value, it should be determined in accordance with the rainfall condition. Within the study area of this research, the CN value of the model exhibits a pattern that initially decreases and subsequently increases with the augmentation of rainfall. Therefore, it is imperative to consider the impact of their combination, and the selection of the CN value should refer to the most representative rainfall event within the study period. Another contribution of this paper lies in the combination of measured data and reanalysis data. The conclusions drawn from the two datasets are largely consistent. This indicates that the reanalysis dataset performs in accordance with the actual law under the SCS-CN model, providing a foundation for its further utilization. We hold the opinion that AMC, slope, and other factors that determine the CN value might also have the potential to serve as thresholds, which could be the subject of future research.

Conceptualized by J.L. and Q.S.; developed the methodology by J.L.; software of J.L.; validated by J.L., Q.S.; rendered support in formal analysis of J.L.; investigated by J.L.; resources of Q.S.; rendered support in data curation of J.L.; wrote the original draft preparation by J.L.; wrote the review and edited the article by Q.S.; visualized by J.L.; supervised by Q.S.; performed the project administration by Q.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.’

This research was funded by the National Key Research and Development Program of China (2021YFD150060102).

All relevant data are included in the paper or its Supplementary Information.

The authors declare there is no conflict.

Adnan
R. M.
,
Petroselli
A.
,
Heddam
S.
,
Santos
C. A. G.
&
Kisi
O.
(
2020
)
Short term rainfall–runoff modelling using several machine learning methods and a conceptual event-based model
,
Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment
,
35
(
3
),
597
616
.
doi:10.1007/s00477-020-01910-0
.
Ajmal
M.
,
Moon
G. W.
,
Ahn
J. H.
&
Kim
T. W.
(
2015
)
Investigation of SCS-CN and its inspired modified models for runoff estimation in South Korean watersheds
,
Journal of Hydro-Environment Research
,
9
,
592
603
.
doi:10.1016/j.jher.2014.11.003
.
Ajmal
M.
,
Waseem
M.
,
Kim
D.
&
Kim
T. W.
(
2020
)
A pragmatic slope-adjusted curve number model to reduce uncertainty in predicting flood runoff from steep watersheds
,
Water
,
12
,
1469
.
https://doi.org/10.3390/w12051469
.
Baba
M. W.
,
Boudhar
A.
,
Gascoin
S.
,
Hanich
L.
,
Marchane
A.
&
Chehbouni
A.
(
2021
)
As-sessment of MERRA-2 and ERA5 to model the snow water equivalent in the high atlas (1981–2019)
,
Water
,
13
,
7
.
doi:10.3390/w13070890
.
Bhuyan
S. J.
,
Mankin
K. R.
&
Koelliker
J. K.
(
2003
)
Watershed-scale AMC selection for hydrologic modeling
,
Transactions of The ASAE
,
46
(
2
),
303
310
.
Retrieved from <Go to ISI > ://WOS:000182949700012
.
Calero Mosquera
D.
,
Hoyos Villada
F.
&
Torres Prieto
E. A.
(
2022
)
Runoff curve number (CN model) evaluation under tropical conditions
,
Earth Sciences Research Journal
,
25
(
4
),
397
404
.
doi:10.15446/esrj.v25n4.95321
.
Caletka
M.
,
Šulc Michalková
M. Š.
,
Karásek
P.
&
Fučík
P.
(
2020
)
Improvement of SCS-CN initial abstraction coefficient in the Czech Republic: A study of five catchments
,
Water.
,
12
,
1964
.
https://doi.org/10.3390/w12071964
.
Ceppi
A.
,
Gambini
E.
,
Lombardi
G.
,
Ravazzani
G.
&
Mancini
M.
(
2022
)
SOL40: Forty years of simulations under climate and land use change
,
Water
,
14
(
6
),
837
.
doi:10.3390/w14060837
.
Christensen
M. F.
,
Heaton
M. J.
,
Rupper
S.
,
Reese
C. S.
&
Christensen
W. F.
(
2019
)
Bayesian multi-scale spatio-temporal modeling of precipitation in the Indus watershed
,
Frontiers in Earth Science
,
7
,
210
.
doi:10.3389/feart.2019.00210
.
da Silva Cruz
J.
,
Blanco
C. J. C.
&
de Oliveira Júnior
J. F.
(
2022
)
Modeling of land use and land cover change dynamics for future projection of the Amazon number curve
,
Science of The Total Environment
,
811
,
152348
.
Gironás
J.
,
Roesner
L. A.
,
Rossman
L. A.
&
Davis
J.
(
2010
)
A new applications manual for the storm water management model (SWMM)
,
Environmental Modelling & Software
,
25
,
813
814
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.152348
.
Global Modeling and Assimilation Office (GMAO)
(
2015a
)
ERRA-2 tavg1_2d_rad_Nx: 2d, 1-Hourly, Time-Averaged, Single-Level, Assimilation, Radiation Diagnostics V5.12.4, Greenbelt, MD, USA, Goddard Earth Sciences Data and Information Services Center (GES DISC), [Accessed 6 Sep 2023], 10.5067/Q9QMY5PBNV1T
.
Global Modeling and Assimilation Office (GMAO)
(
2015b
)
MERRA-2 tavg1_2d_flx_Nx: 2d, 1-Hourly, Time-Averaged, Single-Level, Assimilation, Surface Flux Diagnostics V5.12.4, Greenbelt, MD, USA, Goddard Earth Sciences Data and Information Services Center (GES DISC), [Accessed 6 Sep 2023], 10.5067/7MCPBJ41Y0K6
.
Global Modeling and Assimilation Office (GMAO)
(
2015c
)
MERRA-2 tavg1_2d_lnd_Nx: 2d,1-Hourly,Time-Averaged,Single-Level,Assimilation,Land Surface Diagnostics V5.12.4, Greenbelt, MD, USA, Goddard Earth Sciences Data and Information Services Center (GES DISC), [Accessed 27 Dec 2023], 10.5067/RKPHT8KC1Y1T
.
Golding
B. L.
,
Smith
R. E.
,
Willeke
G. E.
,
Ponce
V. M.
&
Hawkins
R. H.
(
1997
)
Discussions and closure: Runoff curve number: Has it reached maturity?
,
Journal of Hydrologic Engineering
,
2
,
145
148
.
Gu
Z. Y.
,
Chen
H.
&
Yi
X.
(
2020
)
Comparative analysis of Huangwei river runoff prediction based on BP neural network and SVM model
,
Journal of Northwest Forestry University
,
35
(
05
),
201
206
.
Hawkins
R. H.
,
Jiang
R.
,
Woodward
D. E.
,
Hjelmfelt
A. T.
,
Van Mullem
J. A.
&
Quan
Q. D.
(
2002
) ‘
Runoff curve number method: Examination of the initial abstraction ratio
’,
Proceedings of the Second Federal Interagency Hydrologic Modeling Conference
.
Las Vegas, Nevada
.
United States Geological Survey, Lakewood, Colorado. CD-ROM
.
Hussain
S. N.
,
Zwain
H. M.
&
Nile
B. K.
(
2022
)
Modeling the effects of land-use and climate change on the performance of stormwater sewer system using SWMM simulation: Case study
,
Journal of Water and Climate Change.
,
13
,
125
138
.
https://doi.org/10.2166/wcc.2021.180
.
Jethva
B.
,
Ghosh
A.
,
Yale
L.
, (
2021
)
Estimation of surface runoff potential using SCS-CN method and GIS for parts of Doddahalla3 watershed in Krishna River Basin
. In:
Gupta
L. M.
,
Ray
M. R.
&
Labhasetwar
P. K.
(eds.)
Advances in Civil Engineering and Infrastructural Development. Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering
, Vol.
87
,
Singapore:
Springer
, pp.
359
372
.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-6463-5_34
.
Jiang
F.
(
2017
)
Research on the Design of Harbin Regional Park Based on the Concept of low Impact Development
.
Harbin: Northeast Agricultural University
.
Jiao
P.
,
Xu
D.
,
Wang
S.
,
Yu
Y.
&
Han
S.
(
2015
)
Improved SCS-CN method based on storage and depletion of antecedent daily precipitation
,
Water Resources Management
,
29
,
4753
4765
.
Kashif
M.
,
Boran
Z.
,
Jalal Fazal
E.
&
Wuyi
W.
(
2023
)
Transient flow analysis for pumping system comprising pressure vessel using unsteady friction model
,
International Journal of Mechanical Sciences
,
244
,
108093
.
Kumar
A.
,
Kanga
S.
,
Taloor
A. K.
,
Singh
S. K.
&
Đurin
B.
(
2021
)
Surface runoff estimation of Sind river basin using integrated SCS-CN and GIS techniques
,
HydroResearch
,
4
,
61
74
.
doi:10.1016/j.hydres.2021.08.001
.
Li
X.
(
2021
)
Effect of Gully Land Consolidation Project on Characteristics of Runoff Yield and Concentration of Catchment in Loess Hilly and Gully Region
.
Yangling
:
Northwest A&F University
.
doi:10.27409/d.cnki.gxbnu.2021.000540
.
Masayuki
S.
,
Kohji
T.
&
Hiroki
T.
(
2018
)
Proposal of a NASH coefficient that can evaluate the generalization of the water level prediction model
,
Jourmal of Japan Society of Civil Engineers B1
,
74
,
1351
1356
.
https://doi.org/10.2208/jscejhe.74.5_I_1351
.
Mishra
S. K.
&
Singh
V. P.
(
2004
)
Validity and extension of the SCS-CN method for computing infiltration and rainfall-excess rates
,
Hydrological Processes
,
18
(
17
),
3323
3345
.
doi:10.1002/hyp.1223
.
Nathan
R. J.
&
McMahon
T. A.
(
1990
)
Evaluation of automated techniques for base flow and recession analyses
,
Water Resources Research
,
26
,
1465
1473
.
Ogden
F. L.
,
Hawkins
R. P.
,
Walter
M. T.
&
Goodrich
D. C.
(
2017
)
Comment on ‘Beyond the SCS-CN method: A theoretical framework for spatially lumped rainfall-runoff response’ by M. S. Bartlett et al.
,
Water Resources Research
,
53
(
7
),
6345
6350
.
doi:10.1002/2016wr020176
.
Qu
X.-B.
,
Cong
L.
,
Xiao-Fei
X.
,
Meng-Qi
A.
,
Ni-Er
W.
&
Yan-Ping
W.
(
2022
)
Applicability of ERA5-Land and MERRA2 temperature and precipitation data in hulun buir region
,
Desert and Oasis Meteorology
,
16
(
05
),
24
30
.
Reichle
R. H.
,
Draper
C. S.
,
Liu
Q.
,
Girotto
M.
,
Mahanama
S. P.
,
Koster
R. D.
&
De Lannoy
G. J.
(
2017
)
Assessment of MERRA-2 land surface hydrology estimates
,
Journal of Climate
,
30
(
8
),
2937
2960
.
doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0720.1
.
Rossman
L. A.
&
Huber
W. C.
(
2016
)
Storm Water Management Model Reference Manual Volume I- Hydrology (Revised)
.
Cincinnati, OH
:
National Risk Management Laboratory Office of Research and Development U.S
.
Saha
A.
,
Ghosh
M.
&
Pal
S. C.
(
2022
)
Estimation of rainfall–runoff using SCS-CN method and GIS techniques in drought-prone area of upper kangsabati watershed, India
,
Sustainable Water Resources Management
,
8
,
130
.
doi:10.1007/s40899-022-00731-z
.
Thomas
N. W.
,
Ayalew
T. B.
,
Arenas
A. A.
,
Schilling
K. E.
,
Weber
L. J.
&
Krajewski
W. F.
(
2021
)
Characterizing the effects of dry antecedent soil moisture conditions, channel transmission losses, and variable precipitation on peak flow scaling
,
Advances in Water Resources
,
158
,
104061
.
doi:10.1016/j.advwatres.2021.104061
.
Vidya
K. N.
(
2021
)
Runoff assessment by storm water management model (SWMM) – A new approach
,
Journal of Applied and Natural Science
,
13
,
142
148
.
doi:10.31018/jans.v13iSI.2813
.
Walega
A.
,
Amatya
D. M.
,
Caldwell
P.
,
Marion
D.
&
Panda
S.
(
2020
)
Assessment of storm direct runoff and peak flow rates using improved SCS-CN models for selected forested watersheds in the southeastern United States
,
Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies
,
27
,
100645
.
Wang
W.-C.
,
Zhao
Y.-W.
,
Chau
K.-W.
,
Xu
D.-M.
&
Liu
C.-J.
(
2021
)
Improved flood forecasting using geomorphic unit hydrograph based on spatially distributed velocity field
,
Journal of Hydroinformatics
,
23
(
4
),
724
739
.
doi:10.2166/hydro.2021.135
.
Xing
Y.
(
2017
)
The Nutrient Demand Characteristics of Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Potassium of Potatoes in Heilongjiang
.
Harbin
:
Northeast Agricultural University
.
Xiuquan
X. U.
&
Haoming
F. A. N.
(
2019
)
LIGang. Application and correction of the SCS-CN method in runoff estimation if several land use patterns in northeast semi-arid region
,
Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
,
33
,
52
57
.
DOI:10.13870/j.cnki.stbcxb.2019.04.008
.
Yang
S.
,
Tan
M. L.
,
Song
Q.
,
He
J.
,
Yao
N.
,
Li
X.
&
Yang
X.
(
2023
)
Coupling SWAT and Bi-LSTM for improving daily-scale hydro-climatic simulation and climate change impact assessment in a tropical river basin
,
Journal of Environmental Management
,
330
,
117244
.
doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.117244
.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence (CC BY 4.0), which permits copying, adaptation and redistribution, provided the original work is properly cited (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).