Skip to Main Content
As observations of soil water state variables are unavailable for Jinjiang Basin, effectiveness of the proposed soil hydraulic parameter estimation method was evaluated according to the performance of ensemble streamflow simulation, which is a temporally and spatially integrated indicator of basin hydrological behavior. The ensemble simulations and corresponding model performance criteria of CAL_10 and CAL_19 for the calibration period are shown in Figure 4 and Table 5. It is evident that variations in the observed hydrograph were reasonably reproduced by ensemble simulations and the best performances of ensemble simulations corresponding to the two calibrations are satisfactory, judging from NSE. Meanwhile, the best performance of CAL_10 was superior to CAL_19. Judging from P-factor and R-factor values, 8% more observations were included by the uncertainty band of CAL_10, and its width was narrower than that of CAL_19. Similar results were obtained for the validation period, as demonstrated in Figure 5 and Table 6; the NSE of best performance was greater for CAL_10. In this case, 25% more observations were covered by the uncertainty band of CAL_10, with a narrower width than CAL_19. All these findings indicate that simulation uncertainty of CAL_10 is less than that of CAL_19.
Table 5

Model performance criteria of calibration period (2005–2007)

 Number of behavioral parameter setsNSE of best simulationP-factorR-factor
CAL_19 4,776 0.83 69% 0.59 
CAL_10 6,256 0.85 77% 0.57 
 Number of behavioral parameter setsNSE of best simulationP-factorR-factor
CAL_19 4,776 0.83 69% 0.59 
CAL_10 6,256 0.85 77% 0.57 
Table 6

Model performance criteria of validation period (2008–2009)

 NSE of best performanceP-factorR-factor
CAL_19 0.65 59% 1.16 
CAL_10 0.70 84% 1.09 
 NSE of best performanceP-factorR-factor
CAL_19 0.65 59% 1.16 
CAL_10 0.70 84% 1.09 
Figure 4

Comparison of simulated streamflow by behavioral parameter sets obtained from CAL_10 and CAL 19 for calibration period (2005–2007). Dashed lines: observed streamflow; gray band: 95% uncertainty band of ensemble simulation; solid lines: best simulation of ensemble prediction.

Figure 4

Comparison of simulated streamflow by behavioral parameter sets obtained from CAL_10 and CAL 19 for calibration period (2005–2007). Dashed lines: observed streamflow; gray band: 95% uncertainty band of ensemble simulation; solid lines: best simulation of ensemble prediction.

Figure 5

Comparison of simulated streamflow by the behavioral parameter sets obtained from CAL_10 and CAL 19 for validation period (2008–2009). Dashed lines: observed streamflow; gray band: 95% uncertainty band of ensemble simulation; solid lines: best simulation of ensemble prediction.

Figure 5

Comparison of simulated streamflow by the behavioral parameter sets obtained from CAL_10 and CAL 19 for validation period (2008–2009). Dashed lines: observed streamflow; gray band: 95% uncertainty band of ensemble simulation; solid lines: best simulation of ensemble prediction.

Close Modal

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal