|Title:||Evaluation and hydrological simulation of CMADS and CFSR reanalysis datasets in the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau |
|Authors:||Liu, J., D. Shanguan, S. Liu, and Y. Ding |
|Article ID:||513 |
|URL (non-DOI journals):|| |
|Broad Application Category:||hydrologic only |
|Primary Application Category:||climate data effects |
|Secondary Application Category:||hydrologic assessment |
|Watershed Description:||122,000 km^2 Yellow River source, which is located in the northeastern part of the Tibetan Plateau in southwest China. |
|Calibration Summary:|| |
|Validation Summary:|| |
|General Comments:|| |
|Abstract:||Multisource reanalysis datasets provide an effective way to help us understand hydrological
processes in inland alpine regions with sparsely distributed weather stations. The accuracy and
quality of two widely used datasets, the China Meteorological Assimilation Driving Datasets to force
the SWAT model (CMADS), and the Climate Forecast System Reanalysis (CFSR) in the Qinghai-Tibet
Plateau (TP), were evaluated in this paper. The accuracy of daily precipitation, max/min temperature,
relative humidity and wind speed from CMADS and CFSR are firstly evaluated by comparing them
with results obtained from 131 meteorological stations in the TP. Statistical results show that most
elements of CMADS are superior to those of CFSR. The average correlation coefficient (R) between the
maximum temperature and the minimum temperature of CMADS and CFSR ranged from 0.93 to 0.97.
The root mean square error (RMSE) for CMADS and CFSR ranged from 3.16 to 3.18 C, and ranged
from 5.19 C to 8.14 C respectively. The average R of precipitation, relative humidity, and wind
speed for CMADS are 0.46; 0.88 and 0.64 respectively, while they are 0.43, 0.52, and 0.37 for CFSR.
Gridded observation data is obtained using the professional interpolation software, ANUSPLIN.
Meteorological elements from three gridded data have a similar overall distribution but have a
different partial distribution. The Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) is used to simulate
hydrological processes in the Yellow River Source Basin of the TP. The Nash Sutcliffe coefficients
(NSE) of CMADS+SWAT in calibration and validation period are 0.78 and 0.68 for the monthly
scale respectively, which are better than those of CFSR+SWAT and OBS+SWAT in the Yellow River
Source Basin. The relationship between snowmelt and other variables is measured by GeoDetector.
Air temperature, soil moisture, and soil temperature at 1.038 m has a greater influence on snowmelt
than others. |
|Keywords:||CMADS; Qinghai-Tibet Plateau (TP); SWAT; CFSR |