Evaluating the ability of a hydrologic model to replicate hydro‐ecologically relevant indicators. Issue 14 (2nd September 2013)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Shrestha, Rajesh R.; Peters, Daniel L.; Schnorbus, Markus A.; Carey, Sean; Quinton, Bill
• Is Part Of: Hydrological processes. Volume 28:Issue 14(2014:Mar.)
• Page Start: 4294
• Page End: 4310
• Publication Date: 2013-09-02
• Subjects: Hydrology -- Periodicals; Hydrology -- Research -- Periodicals; Hydrologic models -- Periodicals; Hydrological forecasting -- Periodicals; 631.432
• DOI: 10.1002/hyp.9997
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0885-6087

Abstract

<abstract abstract-type="main"> <title>Abstract</title> <p>It is a common practice to employ hydrologic models for assessing alterations to streamflow as a result of anthropogenically driven changes, such as riverine, land use, and climate change. However, the ability of the models to replicate different components of the hydrograph simultaneously is not clear. Hence, this study evaluates the ability of a standard hydrologic model set‐up: Variable Infiltration Capacity (VIC) hydrologic model for two headwater sub‐basins in the Fraser River (Salmon and Willow), British Columbia, Canada, with climate inputs derived from observations and statistically downscaled global climate models (GCMs); to simulate six general water resource indicators (WRIs) and 32 ecologically relevant indicators of hydrologic alterations (IHA). The results show a generally good skill of the observation‐driven VIC model in replicating most of the WRIs and IHAs. Although the WRIs, including annual volume, centre of timing, and seasonal flows, and the IHAs, including maximum and minimum flows, were reasonably well replicated, statistically significant differences in some of the monthly flows, number and duration of flow pulses, rise and fall rates, and reversals were noted. In the case of GCM‐driven results, additional monthly, maximum, and minimum flow indicators produced statistically significant differences. A number of issues with the model input/output data, hydrologic model parametrization and structure as well as downscaling methods were identified, which lead to such discrepancies. Therefore, there is a need to exercise caution in the use of model‐simulated indicators. Overall, the WRIs and IHAs can be useful tools for evaluating changes in an altered hydrologic system, provided the skill and limitations of the model in replicating these indicators are understood. © 2013 Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada. Hydrological Processes © 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.</p> </abstract>