| Title: | Comparative predictions of discharge from an artificial catchment (Chicken Creek) using sparse data |
| Authors: | Hollander, H.M., T. Blume, H. Bormann, W. Buytaert, G.B. Chirico, J.-E. Exbrayat, D. Gustafsson, H. Hotzel, P. Kraft, C. Stamm, S. Stoll, G. Bloschl and H. Fluhler |
| Year: | 2009 |
| Journal: | Hydrology and Earth System Sciences |
| Volume (Issue): | 13(11) |
| Pages: | 2069-2094 |
| Article ID: | |
| DOI: | |
| URL (non-DOI journals): | http://edoc.gfz-potsdam.de/gfz/get/14291/0/06ba6f0d8028563e614d6d52d2ca453b/14291.pdf |
| Model: | SWAT |
| Broad Application Category: | hydrologic only |
| Primary Application Category: | model and/or data comparison |
| Secondary Application Category: | hydrologic assessment |
| Watershed Description: | 6 ha Chicken Creek artificial watershed in open mining pit in Lusatia, Germany |
| Calibration Summary: | |
| Validation Summary: | |
| General Comments: | |
| Abstract: | Ten conceptually different models in predicting
discharge from the artificial Chicken Creek catchment in
North-East Germany were used for this study. Soil texture
and topography data were given to the modellers, but discharge
data was withheld. We compare the predictions with
the measurements from the 6 ha catchment and discuss the
conceptualization and parameterization of the models. The
predictions vary in a wide range, e.g. with the predicted actual
evapotranspiration ranging from 88 to 579 mm/y and the
discharge from 19 to 346 mm/y. The predicted components
of the hydrological cycle deviated systematically from the
observations, which were not known to the modellers. Discharge
was mainly predicted as subsurface discharge with little
direct runoff. In reality, surface runoff was a major flow
component despite the fairly coarse soil texture. The actual
evapotranspiration (AET) and the ratio between actual and
potential ET was systematically overestimated by nine of the
ten models. None of the model simulations came even close
to the observed water balance for the entire 3-year study period.
The comparison indicates that the personal judgement
of the modellers was a major source of the differences between
the model results. The most important parameters to
be presumed were the soil parameters and the initial soilwater
content while plant parameterization had, in this particular
case of sparse vegetation, only a minor influence on
the results. |
| Language: | English |
| Keywords: | |