Modelling hydrologic and hydrodynamic processes in basins with large semi-arid wetlands

Fleischmann, Ayan Santos; Siqueira, Vinícius Alencar; Paris, Adrien; Collischonn, Walter; Paiva, Rodrigo Cauduro Dias de; Pontes, Paulo Rógenes Monteiro; Crétaux, Jean-François; Bergé-Nguyen, Muriel; Biancamaria, Sylvain; Gosset, Marielle; Calmant, Stéphane; Tanimoun, Bachir

doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2018.04.041

Cited by 69 publications

(66 citation statements)

References 68 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The floodplain is treated as a simple storage model and the water level for a given time step is assumed to be constant along the entire unit-catchment. In addition, the model accounts for evaporation in floodplains and infiltration from flooded areas to the unsaturated soil (Fleischmann et al, 2018), thus feedbacks between hydrological 5 and hydrodynamic modules can be also represented (i.e., a two-way coupling approach). Further details on model water balance and flow routing equations are presented in Supplementary Material S1.…”

Section: Model Descriptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Infiltration from 10 floodplains to the soil column was considered and calibrated only for Pantanal region (Kinf = 10 mm day -1 ) since previous studies showed that vertical hydrological processes largely influence model results in this area (e.g., Paz et al, 2014). It is worth mentioning that model sensitivity to river geometry and infiltration parameters were previously assessed by and Fleischmann et al, (2018), respectively. 15 (Table 1) As a result of the calibration procedure, several model parameter sets were manually adjusted and can be summarized into (800-6000) h.…”

Section: Model Adjustmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…La Plata basin , which can ultimately impact model results. Model resolution and the ability to route discharge in downstream multi-directions (e.g., rivers with bifurcations and anabranching networks) can affect simulated water levels and flooded areas (e.g., Mateo et al, 2017), which has been taken into account in recent studies with MGB (e.g., Pontes et al, 2017;Fleischmann et al, 2018) but not in this continental model application. Other model assumptions like an approximation of rectangular channels and ineffective flow over floodplains may also affect the results.…”

Section: Water Levelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In South America, for example, several previous studies suggested that lateral water fluxes in large lowland rivers should be resolved using hydrodynamic routing (e.g., Paiva et al, 2011Paiva et al, , 2013Paz et al, 2011Paz et al, , 2014Yamazaki et al, 2011;Pontes et 10 al., 2017;Zhao et al, 2017), while GHMs generally apply methods based on constant/variable velocity or a kinematic simplification of the St. Venant equations (see the overview by Kauffeldt et al, 2016 andBierkens, 2015). Even if LSMs can be offline coupled to more physically based global river routing models (e.g., Yamazaki et al, 2011;Getirana et al, 2017b), calibration in the latter is likely to compensate for errors in runoff generation (Pappenberger et al, 2010;Hodges, 2013) and lack of relevant vertical hydrological processes linked to river-floodplain dynamics (e.g., Pedinotti 15 et al, 2012;Paz et al, 2014;Fleischmann et al, 2018). In turn, fully coupled large-scale hydrologic-hydrodynamic models (e.g., Paiva et al, 2013) can handle the above interactions while using one single modeling framework, and are now feasible for using in continental domains because recent routing schemes (e.g., Bates et al, 2010) have proved to be computationally efficient for both regional (Getirana et al, 2017b;Pontes et al, 2017;Fleischmann et al, 2018) and global simulations .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Even if LSMs can be offline coupled to more physically based global river routing models (e.g., Yamazaki et al, 2011;Getirana et al, 2017b), calibration in the latter is likely to compensate for errors in runoff generation (Pappenberger et al, 2010;Hodges, 2013) and lack of relevant vertical hydrological processes linked to river-floodplain dynamics (e.g., Pedinotti 15 et al, 2012;Paz et al, 2014;Fleischmann et al, 2018). In turn, fully coupled large-scale hydrologic-hydrodynamic models (e.g., Paiva et al, 2013) can handle the above interactions while using one single modeling framework, and are now feasible for using in continental domains because recent routing schemes (e.g., Bates et al, 2010) have proved to be computationally efficient for both regional (Getirana et al, 2017b;Pontes et al, 2017;Fleischmann et al, 2018) and global simulations . 20 Over the past decades, skill in streamflow prediction has been emphasized in catchment to regional-scale modeling (Archfield et al, 2015), but there is a growing opportunity to perform further spatial analyses rather than relying just on point measurements.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Toward continental hydrologic–hydrodynamic modeling in South America

Paiva¹,

Siqueira²,

Fleischmann³

et al. 2018

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Providing reliable estimates of streamflow and hydrological fluxes is a major challenge for water resources management over national and transnational basins in South America. Global hydrological models and land surface models are a possible solution to simulate the terrestrial water cycle at the continental scale, but issues on parameterization and limitations in representing lowland river systems put into question their utility for basin-scale analysis and to deliver daily 15 discharges to meet local needs. In an attempt to overcome such limitations, we extended a regional, fully coupled hydrologic-hydrodynamic model (MGB) to the continental domain of South America and assessed its performance using daily river discharges, water levels from independent sources (in situ, satellite altimetry), estimates of terrestrial water storage (TWS) and evapotranspiration (ET) from remote sensing and other available global datasets. In addition, river discharges were compared with outputs from global models acquired through the eartH2Observe project (HTESSEL/CaMa-20 Flood, LISFLOOD and WaterGAP3), providing the first cross-scale assessment (regional/continental  global models) that makes use of spatially consistent daily discharge data. A satisfactory representation of discharges and water levels was obtained (NSE > 0.6 in 55 % of the cases) and MGB was able to capture patterns of seasonality and magnitude of TWS and ET especially over the largest basins of South America. Continental-scale modeling significantly improved discharge estimates when compared with global models, which resulted in a large number of gauges with negative (or close to 0) NSE 25 values. Models were largely affected by positive bias mainly over East/Northeast Brazil and Argentina as well as over regions of Sao Francisco and Parnaiba basins, while major issues on flow timing were observed in regions affected by floodplain processes such as the Amazon, La Plata, Tocantins-Araguaia, Orinoco and Magdalena basins. We state that efforts in calibrating rainfall-runoff parameters within large basins are necessary to simulate daily river discharges appropriately in this continent, but implementing a hydrodynamic routing component is also important. We hope that our 30 study provides further insights about hydrological simulation in South America, helping to reduce the gap between global and regional hydrological modeling communities.Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss., https://doi

show abstract

Section: Model Descriptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Model Adjustmentmentioning

confidence: 99%