[go: up one dir, main page]

 
 
Sign in to use this feature.

Years

Between: -

Subjects

remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline

Journals

Article Types

Countries / Regions

Search Results (40)

Search Parameters:
Keywords = CMADS

Order results
Result details
Results per page
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
21 pages, 4114 KiB  
Article
Evaluation and Comparison of Reanalysis Data for Runoff Simulation in the Data-Scarce Watersheds of Alpine Regions
by Xiaofeng Wang, Jitao Zhou, Jiahao Ma, Pingping Luo, Xinxin Fu, Xiaoming Feng, Xinrong Zhang, Zixu Jia, Xiaoxue Wang and Xiao Huang
Remote Sens. 2024, 16(5), 751; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16050751 - 21 Feb 2024
Cited by 2 | Viewed by 1334
Abstract
Reanalysis datasets provide a reliable reanalysis of climate input data for hydrological models in regions characterized by limited weather station coverage. In this paper, the accuracy of precipitation, the maximum and minimum temperatures of four reanalysis datasets, the China Meteorological Assimilation Driving Datasets [...] Read more.
Reanalysis datasets provide a reliable reanalysis of climate input data for hydrological models in regions characterized by limited weather station coverage. In this paper, the accuracy of precipitation, the maximum and minimum temperatures of four reanalysis datasets, the China Meteorological Assimilation Driving Datasets for the SWAT model (CMADS), time-expanded climate forecast system reanalysis (CFSR+), the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecast Reanalysis (ERA). and the China Meteorological Forcing Dataset (CMFD), were evaluated by using data from 28 ground-based observations (OBs) in the Source of the Yangtze and Yellow Rivers (SYYR) region and were used as input data for the SWAT model for runoff simulation and performance evaluation, respectively. And, finally, the CMADS was optimized using Integrated Calibrated Multi-Satellite Retrievals for Global Precipitation Measurement (AIMERG) data. The results show that CMFD is the most representative reanalysis data for precipitation characteristics in the SYYR region among the four reanalysis datasets evaluated in this paper, followed by ERA5 and CFSR, while CMADS performs satisfactorily for temperature simulations in this region, but underestimates precipitation. And we contend that the accuracy of runoff simulations is notably contingent upon the precision of daily precipitation within the reanalysis dataset. The runoff simulations in this region do not effectively capture the extreme runoff characteristics of the Yellow River and Yangtze River sources. The refinement of CMADS through the integration of AIMERG satellite precipitation data emerges as a potent strategy for enhancing the precision of runoff simulations. This research can provide a reference for selecting meteorological data products and optimization methods for hydrological process simulation in areas with few meteorological stations. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Remote Sensing in Natural Resource and Water Environment II)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>(<b>a</b>) Study area of the source of the Yangtze and Yellow Rivers: the main river, main tributaries, climate stations, reanalysis data stations, and streamflow stations; (<b>b</b>) the delimitation of the sub-basins with the SWAT model and the numbers are sub-basin numbers; (<b>c</b>): land use types in 2010 (AGRL: agricultural land; FRST: forest-mixed; RNGB: shrubbery; PAST: pasture; HAY: hay; WATR: water; URML: residential area (medium density); URLD: residential area (low density); UIDU: industrial land; BARR: barren; WETL: wetlands).</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Taylor plots of reanalysis datasets and observations on precipitation, maximum temperature, and minimum temperature for different time scales (daily/monthly/yearly) for 2008–2018. (a-ERA5, b-CFSR, c-CMFD, d-CMADS).</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Daily scale performance diagrams for the years 2008 to 2018 feature bias scores indicated by blue lines and the Comprehensive Similarity Index (CSI) represented by green lines (a-ERA5, b-CFSR, c-CMFD, d-CMADS).</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Spatial distribution of reanalysis datasets and observed data. Subfigures in the first, second, and third columns illustrate the spatial distributions of annual average precipitation, maximum temperature, and minimum temperature, respectively ((<b>a</b>): OBS-Pcp, (<b>b</b>): OBS-Tmax, (<b>c</b>): OBS-Tmin, (<b>d</b>): CMADS-Pcp, (<b>e</b>): CMADS-Tmax, (<b>f</b>): CMADS-Tmin, (<b>g</b>): CFSR-Pcp, (<b>h</b>): CFSR-max, (<b>i</b>): CFSR-Tmin, (<b>j</b>): CMFD-Pcp, (<b>k</b>): CMFD-Tmax, (<b>l</b>): CMFD-Tmin, (<b>m</b>): ERA5-Pcp, (<b>n</b>): ERA5-Tamx, (<b>o</b>): ERA5-Tmin).</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Observed runoff and SWAT model simulations at hydrological stations, spanning the calibration period (2009–2014) and the validation period (2015–2018).</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Comparison of observed extreme runoff at &gt;95% quantile with simulated runoff from SWAT.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Path analysis of runoff changes in the SYYR region, (<b>a</b>) the Yellow River; (<b>b</b>) the Yangtze River. Green color indicates a positive effect, red color indicates a negative effect, and the thickness of the line represents the magnitude of the effect.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Simulation results of observed monthly runoff and the AIMERG-optimized CMADS-driven SWAT model at hydrological stations during the calibration period (2009–2014).</p>
Full article ">
12 pages, 988 KiB  
Data Descriptor
Conflicting Marks Archive Dataset: A Dataset of Conflicting Marks from the Brazilian Intellectual Property Office
by Igor Bezerra Reis, Rafael Ângelo Santos Leite, Mateus Miranda Torres, Alcides Gonçalves da Silva Neto, Francisco José da Silva e Silva and Ariel Soares Teles
Data 2024, 9(2), 33; https://doi.org/10.3390/data9020033 - 9 Feb 2024
Viewed by 1612
Abstract
A registered trademark represents one of a company’s most valuable intellectual assets, acting as a safeguard against possible reputational damage and financial losses resulting from infringements of this intellectual property. To be registered, a mark must be unique and distinctive in relation to [...] Read more.
A registered trademark represents one of a company’s most valuable intellectual assets, acting as a safeguard against possible reputational damage and financial losses resulting from infringements of this intellectual property. To be registered, a mark must be unique and distinctive in relation to other trademarks which are already registered. In this paper, we describe the CMAD, an acronym for Conflicting Marks Archive Dataset. This dataset has been meticulously organized into pairs of marks (Number of pairs = 18,355) involved in copyright infringement across word, figurative and mixed marks. Organizations sought to register these marks with the National Institute of Industrial Property (INPI) in Brazil, and had their applications denied after analysis by intellectual property specialists. The robustness of this dataset is ensured by the intrinsic similarity of the conflicting marks, since the decisions were made by INPI specialists. This characteristic provides a reliable basis for the development and testing of tools designed to analyze similarity between marks, thus contributing to the evolution of practices and computer-based solutions in the field of intellectual property. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Example of nominative similarity.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Example of ideological similarity.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Example of visual similarity.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Methodology steps.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Example of rejection: (<b>a</b>) originally written in PT-BR; (<b>b</b>) translated by the authors to English language.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Example of an XML file containing a mark application.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Example of collected data from a rejected mark.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Sample distribution of presentations for: (<b>a</b>) rejected mark applications, and (<b>b</b>) trademarks.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Three samples of conflicting marks in the CMAD: (<b>a</b>) three pairs of mark images, and (<b>b</b>) respective entries in the CSV file.</p>
Full article ">
22 pages, 5749 KiB  
Article
CMADS and CFSR Data-Driven SWAT Modeling for Impacts of Climate and Land-Use Change on Runoff
by Bailin Du, Lei Wu, Bingnan Ruan, Liujia Xu and Shuai Liu
Water 2023, 15(18), 3240; https://doi.org/10.3390/w15183240 - 12 Sep 2023
Cited by 5 | Viewed by 1379
Abstract
Climate and land-use change significantly impact hydrological processes and water resources management. However, studies of runoff simulation accuracy and attribution analysis in large-scale basins based on multi-source data and different scenario projections are limited. This study employed the Soil and Water Assessment Tool [...] Read more.
Climate and land-use change significantly impact hydrological processes and water resources management. However, studies of runoff simulation accuracy and attribution analysis in large-scale basins based on multi-source data and different scenario projections are limited. This study employed the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) model in conjunction with spatial interpolation techniques to evaluate the accuracy of Climate Forecast System Reanalysis (CFSR), China Meteorological Assimilation Driven Dataset (CMADS), and observation (OBS) in runoff simulations, and configured various scenarios using the Patch-generating Land-use Simulation (PLUS) model to analyze effects of climate and land-use changes on runoff in the Jing River Basin from 1999 to 2018. Results demonstrated the superior performance of the CMADS+SWAT model compared to than CFSR+SWAT model, as the latter underestimated peak runoff. Changes in precipitation had a stronger impact on runoff than temperature, with increased flow from farmland and strong interception effects from forestland. Integrated climate and land-use changes led to an average annual runoff reduction of 1.24 m3/s (I2), primarily attributed to climate change (1.12 m3/s, I3), with a small contribution from land-use change (0.12 m3/s, I4). CMADS exhibited robust applicability under diverse scenarios, effectively enhancing runoff simulation accuracy. The findings provide invaluable guidance for water resources management in semi-arid regions. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Location of Jing River Basin and distribution of meteorological and hydrological stations.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Technical framework employed in this study.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Land-use simulation framework based on the PLUS model.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>(<b>a</b>) Soil classification (ATc: cumulic anthrosols; ATf: fimic anthrosols; CHh: haplic chernozems; CHk, CHk1: calcic chernozems; CHl: luvic chernozems; CMc, CMc1: calcaric cambisols; CMd: dystric cambisols; CMe, CMe1: eutric cambisols; CMg, CMg1: gleyic cambisols; FLc, FLc1: calcaric fluvisols; GLk: calcic gleysols; GRh: haplic greyzems; GYh: haplic gypsisols; LVh: haplic luvisols; LVk: calcic luvisols; RGc: calcaric regosols), (<b>b</b>) land-use classification (AGRL: agriculture land; BARR: barren; FRST: forest; PAST: grassland; URBN: urban; WATR: water), (<b>c</b>) sub-basin delineation in the Jing River Basin.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Spatial distribution of CMADS, CFSR, and OBS in Jing River Basin: the first, second, and third rows of the figure represent the spatial distribution of annual average precipitation, maximum temperature, and minimum temperature, respectively.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Intra-annual distribution of 3 types of meteorological data in the Jing River Basin (error bars indicate standard errors): (<b>a</b>) intra-annual distribution for precipitation, (<b>b</b>) intra-annual distribution for maximum temperature, (<b>c</b>) intra-annual distribution for minimum temperature.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Comparison of monthly runoff simulation results from different meteorological data-driven SWAT models.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Annual runoff at Zhangjiazhan Station under different change scenarios: (<b>a</b>) precipitation change scenarios: C<sub>p0</sub> to C<sub>p4</sub>, (<b>b</b>) temperature change scenarios: C<sub>t0</sub> to C<sub>t4</sub>; (<b>c</b>) land-use change scenarios: L<sub>0</sub> to L<sub>4</sub>.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Schematic diagram of land-use type in Jing River Basin: (<b>a</b>) land-use in 2030, (<b>b</b>) land-use type transformation in 2010–2030.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Comparison of simulated and observed monthly runoff at Zhangjiashan Station under the integrated scenario: (<b>a</b>) Runoff simulation effects for scenarios I<sub>1</sub> and I<sub>4</sub>, (<b>b</b>) Runoff simulation effects for scenarios I<sub>1</sub> and I<sub>4</sub>, (<b>c</b>) Correlations for scenario I<sub>1</sub>, (<b>d</b>) Correlations for scenario I<sub>2</sub>, (<b>e</b>) Correlations for scenario I<sub>3</sub>, (<b>f</b>) Correlations for scenario I<sub>4</sub>.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Analysis of water production under different scenario models (mm): the <b>first row</b> indicates <b>C<sub>p1</sub></b>–<b>C<sub>p4</sub></b> for different precipitation scenarios, 38–210 mm; the <b>second row</b> indicates <b>C<sub>t1</sub></b>–<b>C<sub>t4</sub></b> for different temperature scenarios, 56–147 mm; the <b>third row</b> indicates <b>L<sub>1</sub></b>–<b>L<sub>4</sub></b> for different land-use scenarios, 56–138 mm; and the <b>fourth row</b> indicates <b>I<sub>1</sub></b>–<b>I<sub>4</sub></b> for integrated scenarios, 56–143 mm.</p>
Full article ">
24 pages, 2522 KiB  
Article
Hydrological Modeling in the Upper Lancang-Mekong River Basin Using Global and Regional Gridded Meteorological Re-Analyses
by Shixiao Zhang, Yang Lang, Furong Yang, Xinran Qiao, Xiuni Li, Yuefei Gu, Qi Yi, Lifeng Luo and Qingyun Duan
Water 2023, 15(12), 2209; https://doi.org/10.3390/w15122209 - 12 Jun 2023
Cited by 4 | Viewed by 1968
Abstract
Multisource meteorological re-analyses provide the most reliable forcing data for driving hydrological models to simulate streamflow. We aimed to assess different hydrological responses through hydrological modeling in the upper Lancang-Mekong River Basin (LMRB) using two gridded meteorological datasets, Climate Forecast System Re-analysis (CFSR) [...] Read more.
Multisource meteorological re-analyses provide the most reliable forcing data for driving hydrological models to simulate streamflow. We aimed to assess different hydrological responses through hydrological modeling in the upper Lancang-Mekong River Basin (LMRB) using two gridded meteorological datasets, Climate Forecast System Re-analysis (CFSR) and the China Meteorological Assimilation Driving Datasets for the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) model (CMADS). We selected the Pearson’s correlation coefficient (R), percent bias (PBIAS), and root mean square error (RMSE) indices to compare the six meteorological variables of the two datasets. The spatial distributions of the statistical indicators in CFSR and CMADS, namely, the R, PBIAS, and RMSE values, were different. Furthermore, the soil and water assessment tool plus (SWAT+) model was used to perform hydrological modeling based on CFSR and CMADS meteorological re-analyses in the upper LMRB. The different meteorological datasets resulted in significant differences in hydrological responses, reflected by variations in the sensitive parameters and their optimal values. The differences in the calibrated optimal values for the sensitive parameters led to differences in the simulated water balance components between the CFSR- and CMADS-based SWAT+ models. These findings could help improve the understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of different meteorological re-analysis datasets and their roles in hydrological modeling. Full article
(This article belongs to the Section Hydrology)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>DEMs, delineated watershed, and location of the Chiang Sean hydrological station in the upper LMRB.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Spatial distribution of the six meteorological variables of the CFSR and CMADS datasets.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Spatial distributions of the R, PBIAS, and RMSE of the six meteorological variables for CFSR and CMADS.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>First-order sensitivity of 24 commonly used parameters for streamflow simulation based on the two different meteorological re-analyses, CFSR and CMADS, under Sobol’s method. Note: soil evaporation compensation factor (esco), saturated hydraulic conductivity of soil layer (k), snowmelt temperature (snomelt_tmp), available water capacity of soil layer (awc), lateral flow travel time (lat_ttime), snowfall temperature (snofall_tmp), percolation coefficient (perco), average slope steepness in HRU (slope), alpha factor for groundwater recession curve (alpha), snowmelt lag factor (snomelt_lag), minimum snowmelt temperature (snomelt_min), fraction of pet to calculate revap (revap_co), minimum aquifer storage to allow return flow (flo_min), surface runoff lag time (surlag), maximum canopy storage (canmx), plant water uptake compensation factor (epco), soil conservation service (SCS), runoff curve number adjustment factor (cn2), maximum snowmelt temperature (snomelt_max), threshold depth of water in shallow aquifer required to allow revap to occur (revap_min), effective hydraulic conductivity of main channel alluvium (chk), Manning’s “n” value for the main channel (chn), Manning’s “n” value for overland flow (ovn), average slope length for erosion (slope_len), and fraction of transmission losses from main channel that enter the deep aquifer (trnsrch).</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Comparison of the simulated monthly streamflow based on the corresponding calibrated SWAT+ model parameters forced by the two different meteorological re-analyses with the observed monthly streamflow and precipitation from the Chiang Sean hydrological station during the calibration (2009–2010) and validation (2011–2013) periods.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Simulated water balance based on the corresponding calibrated SWAT+ model parameters forced by the two different meteorological re-analyses, CFSR and CMADS. Note: ET, evapotranspiration, is a collective term that includes all processes by which water on the Earth’s surface is converted to water vapor [<a href="#B40-water-15-02209" class="html-bibr">40</a>], including evaporation from the plant canopy, transpiration, sublimation, and evaporation from the soil, which are calculated individually in SWAT+; PET, potential evapotranspiration, is the rate at which evapotranspiration would occur from a large area uniformly covered with growing vegetation that has access to an unlimited supply of soil water and is not exposed to advection or heat storage effects [<a href="#B40-water-15-02209" class="html-bibr">40</a>], calculated by the Penman–Monteith method.</p>
Full article ">
17 pages, 3647 KiB  
Article
Runoff Simulation under the Effects of the Modified Soil Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) Model in the Jiyun River Basin
by Zhaoguang Li, Shan Jian, Rui Gu and Jun Sun
Water 2023, 15(11), 2110; https://doi.org/10.3390/w15112110 - 2 Jun 2023
Cited by 2 | Viewed by 1762
Abstract
Few studies have been conducted to simulate watersheds with insufficient meteorological and hydrological information. The Jiyun River watershed was selected as the study area. A suitable catchment area threshold was determined by combining the river network density method with the Soil and Water [...] Read more.
Few studies have been conducted to simulate watersheds with insufficient meteorological and hydrological information. The Jiyun River watershed was selected as the study area. A suitable catchment area threshold was determined by combining the river network density method with the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) models, which was driven using the CMADS dataset (China Meteorological Assimilation Driving Datasets for the SWAT model). Monthly runoff simulations were conducted for the basin from 2010 to 2014, and the calibration and validation of model parameters were completed with observed data. The results showed that the final expression for the density of the river network in the Jiyun River basin as a function of density (y) and the catchment area threshold (x) was obtained as y = 926.782x−0.47717. The “inflection point” of the exponential function was the optimal catchment area threshold. The catchment area threshold had an upper and lower limit of the applicable range and was related to the percentage of the total basin area. The simulation results would be affected if the threshold values were outside the suitable scope. When the catchment area was 1.42% of the entire watershed area, increasing the threshold value had less effect on the runoff simulation results; decreasing the threshold value would cause the simulation results to be unstable. When the catchment area reached 1.42% to 2.33% of the total watershed area, the simulation results were in good agreement with the observed values; the coefficient of determination (R2) and Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency coefficient (NSE) were more significant than 0.79 and 0.78 for the calibration periods evaluation index. Both were greater than 0.77 and 0.76 for the validation period, which met the evaluation requirements of the model. The results showed that the CMADS-driven SWAT model applied to the runoff simulation and the river network density method adoption to determine the catchment area threshold provided a theoretical basis for a reasonable sub-basin division in the Jiyun River basin. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Flood Risk Management and Resilience Volume II)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Location of the study area and distribution of the hydrological and meteorological gauges.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Distribution of soil types (<b>A</b>) and land cover types (<b>B</b>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Comparison of subwatershed divisions with different catchment area thresholds ((<b>A</b>–<b>L</b>) represents subwatershed division under the catchment area threshold 17–147).</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Variation in river network density (<b>A</b>), first−order derivatives of river network density (<b>B</b>), and second−order derivatives of river network density (<b>C</b>) with catchment thresholds.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Hydrographs and scatter plots of the model calibration and validation for Jiuwangzhuang (<b>A</b>,<b>B</b>), Erdaozha (<b>C</b>,<b>D</b>), and Haihezha (<b>E</b>,<b>F</b>) hydrological stations.</p>
Full article ">
21 pages, 55320 KiB  
Article
Analysis of the Applicability of Multisource Meteorological Precipitation Data in the Yunnan-Kweichow-Plateau Region at Multiple Scales
by Hongbo Zhang, Ting Yang, Alhassane Bah, Zhumei Luo, Guohong Chen and Yanglin Xie
Atmosphere 2023, 14(4), 701; https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos14040701 - 10 Apr 2023
Cited by 2 | Viewed by 1472
Abstract
Multisource meteorological precipitation products are an important way to make up for a lack of observation sites or a lack of precipitation data in areas with a complex topography. They have important value for local industrial, agricultural, and ecological water use calculations, as [...] Read more.
Multisource meteorological precipitation products are an important way to make up for a lack of observation sites or a lack of precipitation data in areas with a complex topography. They have important value for local industrial, agricultural, and ecological water use calculations, as well as for water resource evaluation and management. The Yunnan-Kweichow Plateau is located in southwest China and has a relatively backward economy and few meteorological stations. At the same time, the terrain is dominated by mountain valleys, precipitation is greatly affected by the terrain, and meteorological data are lacking, making the calculation of local water resources difficult. In this study, the applicability of the 3-hourly merged high-quality/IR estimates (3B42) of the Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM), China Meteorological Forcing Dataset (CMFD), and China Meteorological Assimilation Driving Datasets (CMADS) in the Yunnan-Kweichow Plateau was analyzed using multiple evaluation indicators of different temporal scales and precipitation intensity levels as well as the spatial distribution of the indicators based on measured daily precipitation data from 59 national meteorological basic stations in the study area in 2008–2018. The results showed that (1) the three products had performed well and could be applied to the calculation of local water resources with CMFD performing the best; (2) the performance of precipitation products was slightly worse on the daily scale, and the overall performance of the yearly, quarterly, and monthly scales was better; (3) good results were achieved in most regions, but there were also some regions with prominent overestimation and underestimation; (4) the three precipitation products had the highest probabilities of detection and the lowest false alarm rates for no rain and light rain, and the probability of detection gradually decreased with an increase in the precipitation intensity; and (5) the mean absolute error of precipitation products in rainy months is large, so the accuracy of products in the calculation of heavy rain and flood will be limited. Full article
(This article belongs to the Section Meteorology)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Distribution Map of the study area and ground precipitation station.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Annual average precipitation variation from 2008–2018 for products and site data.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Scatterplot of three precipitation products and station-measured annual precipitation.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Box plots of statistical indicators for 3 sets of precipitation products in different seasons. The diamonds represent the minimum and maximum values and the small rectangles indicate the mean values.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Comparison of the measured and monthly average precipitation results for each precipitation product in the study area.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Radar chart of continuity evaluation indicators by month.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Radar distribution of statistical indicators under different precipitation intensities.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Frequency distribution of different precipitation intensities for different precipitation products.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Spatial Distribution Map of (<b>a</b>) the Mean Annual Precipitation and Corresponding Precipitation Bias of the Three Products: (<b>b</b>) CMFD, (<b>c</b>) TRMM 3B42 and (<b>d</b>) CMADS.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Distribution of the statistical indicators.</p>
Full article ">
12 pages, 1685 KiB  
Article
H2S Emission and Microbial Community of Chicken Manure and Vegetable Waste in Anaerobic Digestion: A Comparative Study
by Guangliang Tian, Marvin Yeung and Jinying Xi
Fermentation 2023, 9(2), 169; https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation9020169 - 13 Feb 2023
Cited by 4 | Viewed by 1516
Abstract
In order to solve the problem of H2S corrosion in biogas utilization, it is necessary to understand the characteristics and mechanisms of H2S production in chicken manure anaerobic digestion (CMAD) and vegetable waste anaerobic digestion (VWAD). In this study, [...] Read more.
In order to solve the problem of H2S corrosion in biogas utilization, it is necessary to understand the characteristics and mechanisms of H2S production in chicken manure anaerobic digestion (CMAD) and vegetable waste anaerobic digestion (VWAD). In this study, lab-scale batch tests of CMAD and VWAD were conducted for 67 days at 35 °C. The results showed that sulfide was found to be the major form of sulfur in CMAD (accounting for 90%) and VWAD (70%). The average concentration of H2S was 198 ± 79 ppm in CMAD and 738 ± 210 ppm in VWAD. Moreover, 81% of total H2S was produced at 20 days of methane production in CMAD, but 80% of total H2S was produced in the first day in VWAD because of the rapid production of biogas and fermentation acidification. The sulfide ion equilibrium model could universally and feasibly predict the H2S production in CMAD and VWAD. The abundance of Firmicutes, Bacteroidetes, Proteobacteria and Euryarchaeota accounted for about 95% of the total microbes in both CMAD and VWAD; the influence of the fermentation stage on the microbial community was greater than that of the difference between CM and VW; the abundance of SRB was 0.01~0.07%, while that concerning organosulfur compounds fermentation was 22.8~30.5%. This study indicated that the H2S concentration of CMAD biogas was more than five times that of VWAD because CM is alkalescent but VW is acidic. Full article
(This article belongs to the Section Industrial Fermentation)
Show Figures

Graphical abstract

Graphical abstract
Full article ">Figure 1
<p>Schematic of the batch biogas fermentation system (1. The volume of saturated salt water is 95% of the volume of the biogas storage bottle at fermentation starting time, and the water is pressured to metering bottle by biogas resulted from chicken manure (or vegetable waste) AD. Stirring is not performed during the anaerobic process. 2. The volume of biogas has been measured according to the volume of saturated salt water in the metering bottle, then, a sample of biogas was taken from sampling port. 3. Fifty-milliliter aluminum foil bags were used to collect biogas containing H<sub>2</sub>S from the sampling port for testing the biogas components).</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Characteristics of biogas, CH<sub>4</sub>, and H<sub>2</sub>S production in CMAD and VWAD: (<b>a</b>) biogas yield every 4 days; (<b>b</b>) biogas cumulative; (<b>c</b>) CH<sub>4</sub> production every 4 days; (<b>d</b>) methane cumulative; (<b>e</b>) H<sub>2</sub>S concentration; (<b>f</b>) cumulative H<sub>2</sub>S.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>The estimation of H<sub>2</sub>S based on sulfide ionization equilibrium model and the Henry theorem: (<b>a</b>) pH value; (<b>b</b>) sulfide concentration in supernate; (<b>c</b>) predicted and actual values of H<sub>2</sub>S cumulative in CMAD; (<b>d</b>) predictive and actual values of cumulative H<sub>2</sub>S in VWAD.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>The microbial community structure at the phylum level (<b>a</b>) and species (<b>b</b>) and PCA analysis (<b>c</b>). Note: (<b>a</b>) the top 30 most abundant OTUs are shown; (<b>b</b>) A0, B0, and C0 represent the CMAD, VWAD, and day 0 samples of inoculum, respectively.</p>
Full article ">
21 pages, 6338 KiB  
Article
Hydrological Modeling in the Chaohu Lake Basin of China—Driven by Open-Access Gridded Meteorological and Remote Sensing Precipitation Products
by Junli Liu, Yun Zhang, Lei Yang and Yuying Li
Water 2022, 14(9), 1406; https://doi.org/10.3390/w14091406 - 28 Apr 2022
Cited by 4 | Viewed by 2230
Abstract
This study assessed the performance of two well-known gridded meteorological datasets, CFSR (Climate Forecast System Reanalysis) and CMADS (China Meteorological Assimilation Driving Datasets), and three satellite-based precipitation datasets, TRMM (Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission), CMORPH (Climate Prediction Center morphing technique), and CHIRPS (Climate Hazards [...] Read more.
This study assessed the performance of two well-known gridded meteorological datasets, CFSR (Climate Forecast System Reanalysis) and CMADS (China Meteorological Assimilation Driving Datasets), and three satellite-based precipitation datasets, TRMM (Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission), CMORPH (Climate Prediction Center morphing technique), and CHIRPS (Climate Hazards Group InfraRed Precipitation with Station data), in driving the SWAT (Soil and Water Assessment Tool) model for streamflow simulation in the Fengle watershed in the middle–lower Yangtze Plain, China. Eighteen model scenarios were generated by forcing the SWAT model with different combinations of three meteorological datasets and six precipitation datasets. Our results showed that (1) the three satellite-based precipitation datasets (i.e., TRMM, CMORPH, and CHIRPS) generally provided more accurate precipitation estimates than CFSR and CMADS. CFSR and CMADS agreed fairly well with the gauged measurements in maximum temperature, minimum temperature, and relative humidity, but large discrepancies existed for the solar radiation and wind speed. (2) The impact of precipitation data on simulated streamflow was much larger than that of other meteorological variables. Satisfactory simulations were achieved using the CMORPH precipitation data for daily streamflow simulation and the TRMM and CHIRPS precipitation data for monthly streamflow simulation. This suggests that different precipitation datasets can be used for optimal simulations at different temporal scales. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advanced Hydrologic Modeling in Watershed Scales)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Locations of the Fengle river basin, gauge stations, and the center points of grid cells of the gridded meteorological and precipitation datasets.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Flowchart of streamflow simulation driven by open-access gridded meteorological and remote sensing precipitation products.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>The cumulative fraction of daily precipitation from six datasets (Gauge, CFSR, CMADS, TRMM, CMORPH, and CHIRPS) at the watershed scale during 2009–2014. The left subfigure shows the cumulative fraction for daily precipitation ranging from 0 to 100 mm/day; in order to show more details, the two subfigures in the right show the cumulative fraction for daily precipitation ranging from 0 to 5 mm/day and 5 to 40 mm/day, respectively.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Comparison of monthly precipitation totals from six datasets at the watershed scale during 2009–2014, including (<b>a</b>) Gauge CFSR, and CMADS, (<b>b</b>) Gauge, TRMM, CMORPH, and CHIRPS.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>The cumulative fraction of daily maximum and minimum air temperature, solar radiation, wind speed, relative humidity, and potential ET from three different datasets (Gauge, CFSR, and CMADS) at the watershed scale during 2009–2014.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Comparison of the monthly mean of daily maximum (TMX) and minimum (TMN) air temperature, solar radiation (SOL), wind speed (WIND), and relative humidity (HMD) from the Gauge, CFSR, and CMADS datasets, and their resulting potential evapotranspiration (PET) estimates at the watershed scale during 2009–2014.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Comparison of daily measured (black line) and simulated (red line) streamflow from models using the CFSR meteorological (excluding precipitation) datasets and six different precipitation datasets for the period 2009–2014, including (<b>a</b>) Gauge, (<b>b</b>) CFSR, (<b>c</b>) CMADS, (<b>d</b>) TRMM, (<b>e</b>) CMORPH, and (<b>f</b>) CHIRPS.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Comparison of monthly measured (black line) and simulated (red line) streamflow from models using the CFSR meteorological (excluding precipitation) datasets and six different precipitation datasets for the period 2009–2014, including (<b>a</b>) Gauge, (<b>b</b>) CFSR, (<b>c</b>) CMADS, (<b>d</b>) TRMM, (<b>e</b>) CMORPH, and (<b>f</b>) CHIRPS.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Annual mean water balance components for simulations using eighteen scenarios during 2009–2014. The different colors represent using different precipitation datasets (Gauge, CFSR, CMADS, TRMM, CMORPH, CHIRPS), and the three bars displayed in the same color used the Gauge, CFSR, and CMADS meteorological data from left to right, respectively. AET—actual evapotranspiration; WYLD—water yield, the net amount of water that leaves the subbasin and contributes to streamflow in the reach; SUR_Q—surface runoff contribution to streamflow; GW_Q—groundwater contribution to streamflow; LAT_Q—lateral flow contribution to streamflow; PERC—water percolating past the root zone.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Spatial distributions of annual mean precipitation using different precipitation data during 2009–2014, including (<b>a</b>) Gauge, (<b>b</b>) CFSR, (<b>c</b>) CMADS, (<b>d</b>) TRMM, (<b>e</b>) CMORPH, and (<b>f</b>) CHIRPS.</p>
Full article ">
22 pages, 3563 KiB  
Article
Assessment of an Alternative Climate Product for Hydrological Modeling: A Case Study of the Danjiang River Basin, China
by Yiwei Guo, Wenfeng Ding, Wentao Xu, Xiudi Zhu, Xiekang Wang and Wenjian Tang
Water 2022, 14(7), 1105; https://doi.org/10.3390/w14071105 - 30 Mar 2022
Cited by 5 | Viewed by 2442
Abstract
Precipitation has been recognized as the most critical meteorological parameter in hydrological studies. Recent developments in space technology provide cost-effective alternative ground-based observations to simulate the hydrological process. Here, this paper aims to evaluate the performance of satellite-based datasets in the hydrological modeling [...] Read more.
Precipitation has been recognized as the most critical meteorological parameter in hydrological studies. Recent developments in space technology provide cost-effective alternative ground-based observations to simulate the hydrological process. Here, this paper aims to evaluate the performance of satellite-based datasets in the hydrological modeling of a sensitive area in terms of water quality and safety watershed. Three precipitation products, i.e., rain gauge observations (RO), the China Meteorological Assimilation Driving Datasets for the SWAT model (CMADS), and Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission Multi-satellite (TRMM) products, were used to develop the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) model to simulate the streamflow in the Danjiang River Basin (DRB). The results show that: (1) these three precipitation products have a similar performance with regard to monthly time scale compared with the daily scale; (2) CMADS and TRMM performed better than RO in the runoff simulations. CMADS is a more accurate dataset when combined with satellite-based and ground-based data; (3) the results indicate that the CMADS dataset provides reliable results on both monthly and daily scales, and CMADS is a possible alternative climate product for developing a SWAT model for the DRB. This study is expected to serve as a reference for choosing the precipitation products for watersheds similar to DRB where the rain gauge data are limited. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Flash Floods: Forecasting, Monitoring and Mitigation Strategies)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Location of the Danjiang River Basin and the distribution of hydrological stations, CMADS stations, TRMM points, and rain gauges.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Three different precipitation records at monthly scale in the DRB (the CC value of Gauge-CMADS and Gauge–TRMM were 0.74 and 0.75, respectively; 2009, 2011, and 2012 were denoted as rainy years, 2014 was denoted as the normal year, and 2010, 2013, and 2015 were denoted as drought years. Additionally, the data in this figure were given as year and month.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>The box diagrams of three precipitation records at a monthly scale in the DRB.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Scatterplot of the CMADS and TRMM records compared with Gauge records at a daily scale: (<b>a</b>) comparison of CMADS and Gauge and (<b>b</b>) comparisons of TRMM and Gauge. Note that the straight lines that pass through the origin are dividing lines with an angle of 45° to the x-axis, which means that the precipitation products overestimated the rainfall if the point is higher than this line.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Cumulative frequencies of daily precipitation intensity for Gauge (red points), CMADS (blue points), and TRMM (green points) in the DRB: (<b>a</b>) distribution of all precipitation values, (<b>b</b>) distribution of precipitation values that are &lt;50 mm, and (<b>c</b>) distribution of precipitation values that are ≥50 mm.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Spatial variation of precipitation at a yearly scale for all sub-basins calculated with precipitation inputs from (<b>a</b>) CMADS, (<b>b</b>) TRMM, and (<b>c</b>) Gauge.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Box plot of the monthly runoff from 2006 to 2015, observed data and simulated streamflow using CMADS, TRMM, and Gauge data at (<b>A</b>) Majie Station, (<b>B</b>) Danfeng Station, and (<b>C</b>) Jingziguan Station.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Observed and simulated discharges at Majie Station, Danfeng Station, and Jingziguan Station in the DRB at a monthly scale using inputs from Gauge, CMADS, and TRMM. Note that this figure is given as year/month.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Observed and simulated discharges at Majie Station, Danfeng Station, and Jingziguan Station of the DRB at a daily scale using inputs of Gauge, CMADS, and TRMM. Note that this figure is given as year/month/day.</p>
Full article ">
31 pages, 9791 KiB  
Article
Evaluation and Application of Reanalyzed Combined Data under Extreme Climate Conditions: A Case Study of a Typical Flood Event in the Jinsha River
by Dandan Guo, Chi Luo, Jian Xiang and Siyu Cai
Atmosphere 2022, 13(2), 263; https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos13020263 - 4 Feb 2022
Cited by 1 | Viewed by 1968
Abstract
From 15 to 20 September 2016, precipitation extremes occurred in the middle and lower reaches of the Jinsha River, causing immense direct economic losses due to floods. The current research on extreme climate characteristics and the relationship between climate extremes and runoff extremes [...] Read more.
From 15 to 20 September 2016, precipitation extremes occurred in the middle and lower reaches of the Jinsha River, causing immense direct economic losses due to floods. The current research on extreme climate characteristics and the relationship between climate extremes and runoff extremes are based on a single data source. This is due to the uneven distribution of precipitation and temperature stations, which make it difficult to fully capture extreme climate events. In this paper, various internationally popular reanalysis datasets were introduced. Extreme climate indexes were computed using the merged datasets versus the meteorological station observations. The results showed that: (1) Comparative analysis of the extreme climate indexes of the reanalysis dataset and the data of traditional meteorological observation stations showed that most of the extreme precipitation indexes calculated by the various reanalysis of combined data exhibited good performances. Among the reanalyzed combined products, CMPA-H, CMADS, and GPM (IMERG) exhibited good performance while the performance of TRMM (TMPA) was slightly worse. The extreme temperature indexes, TXx and TNn, calculated based on the reanalysis of combined data showed a better consistency than the indexes calculated based on the observational data of meteorological stations. The CMADS temperature dataset exhibited a higher consistency with the data obtained from meteorological stations as well as the best accuracy (84% of the stations with the error value of TXx calculated from the CMADS dataset and observed data less than 3 °C). (2) The response of typical flood events to precipitation extremes were analyzed and evaluated; the spatial distribution of the precipitation in the combined dataset was used to quantitatively analyze the response of occurrence of typical flood events to precipitation extremes, and the typical flood events were found to be mainly caused by certain factors, such as lagging flood propagation in the upstream of the basin outlet. This study indicates that it is feasible to use the reanalyzed combined data products to calculate the extreme climate indexes of the Jinsha River Basin, especially in the upper reaches of the Yangtze River where there is a lack of meteorological observation stations. Full article
(This article belongs to the Section Climatology)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Study area and distribution of the main sites.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Spatial distribution diagram of the extreme precipitation indexes (RX1day, RX5day, R95p, and R99p unit: mm; SDII unit: mm/day; CDD and CWD unit: mm). Please note: gauge represents the extreme index values calculated by the observation data of the site, CMPA-H, CMADS, GPM, and TRMM represent the extreme index values calculated by the CMPA-H, CMADS, GPM, and TRMM data. The height of the bar chart represents the extreme index values.).</p>
Full article ">Figure 2 Cont.
<p>Spatial distribution diagram of the extreme precipitation indexes (RX1day, RX5day, R95p, and R99p unit: mm; SDII unit: mm/day; CDD and CWD unit: mm). Please note: gauge represents the extreme index values calculated by the observation data of the site, CMPA-H, CMADS, GPM, and TRMM represent the extreme index values calculated by the CMPA-H, CMADS, GPM, and TRMM data. The height of the bar chart represents the extreme index values.).</p>
Full article ">Figure 2 Cont.
<p>Spatial distribution diagram of the extreme precipitation indexes (RX1day, RX5day, R95p, and R99p unit: mm; SDII unit: mm/day; CDD and CWD unit: mm). Please note: gauge represents the extreme index values calculated by the observation data of the site, CMPA-H, CMADS, GPM, and TRMM represent the extreme index values calculated by the CMPA-H, CMADS, GPM, and TRMM data. The height of the bar chart represents the extreme index values.).</p>
Full article ">Figure 2 Cont.
<p>Spatial distribution diagram of the extreme precipitation indexes (RX1day, RX5day, R95p, and R99p unit: mm; SDII unit: mm/day; CDD and CWD unit: mm). Please note: gauge represents the extreme index values calculated by the observation data of the site, CMPA-H, CMADS, GPM, and TRMM represent the extreme index values calculated by the CMPA-H, CMADS, GPM, and TRMM data. The height of the bar chart represents the extreme index values.).</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Comparison chart of the maximum extreme precipitation indexes (please note, observation represents the extreme index values calculated by the observation data of the site, while CMPA-H, CMADS, GPM, and TRMM represent the extreme index values calculated by the CMPA-H, CMADS, GPM, and TRMM data. Same as below).</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Comparison chart of the maximum extreme precipitation daily indexes (the unit “d” represents “days”).</p>
Full article ">Figure 4 Cont.
<p>Comparison chart of the maximum extreme precipitation daily indexes (the unit “d” represents “days”).</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Spatial distribution of extreme temperature index comparative analysis (TXx, TNx, TXn, and TNn unit: mm; FD0 and ID0 unit: days). Please note, gauge represents the extreme index values calculated by the observation data of the site, GRID and CMADS represent the extreme index values calculated by the 0.5° × 0.5° grid dataset of daily surface temperature in China and CMADS. The height of the bar chart represents the extreme index values.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5 Cont.
<p>Spatial distribution of extreme temperature index comparative analysis (TXx, TNx, TXn, and TNn unit: mm; FD0 and ID0 unit: days). Please note, gauge represents the extreme index values calculated by the observation data of the site, GRID and CMADS represent the extreme index values calculated by the 0.5° × 0.5° grid dataset of daily surface temperature in China and CMADS. The height of the bar chart represents the extreme index values.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5 Cont.
<p>Spatial distribution of extreme temperature index comparative analysis (TXx, TNx, TXn, and TNn unit: mm; FD0 and ID0 unit: days). Please note, gauge represents the extreme index values calculated by the observation data of the site, GRID and CMADS represent the extreme index values calculated by the 0.5° × 0.5° grid dataset of daily surface temperature in China and CMADS. The height of the bar chart represents the extreme index values.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5 Cont.
<p>Spatial distribution of extreme temperature index comparative analysis (TXx, TNx, TXn, and TNn unit: mm; FD0 and ID0 unit: days). Please note, gauge represents the extreme index values calculated by the observation data of the site, GRID and CMADS represent the extreme index values calculated by the 0.5° × 0.5° grid dataset of daily surface temperature in China and CMADS. The height of the bar chart represents the extreme index values.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Comparison chart of the maximum temperature index. Please note, observation represents the extreme index values calculated by the observation data of the site, while 0.5° grid and CMADS represent the extreme index values calculated by the 0.5° × 0.5° grid dataset of daily surface temperature in China and CMADS. Same as below.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Comparison chart of the lowest temperature indexes.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Comparison chart of the maximum daily extreme temperature indexes.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Spatial distribution of CMADS daily precipitation and extreme precipitation thresholds at each meteorological station within eight days of the occurrence of a typical flood event.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Spatial distribution map of CMADS precipitation and extreme precipitation thresholds corresponding to meteorological stations within eight days after a typical flood event occurred (“value” represents “daily precipitation”). Please note, stars represent meteorological stations with daily precipitation close to or above the extreme precipitation threshold.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10 Cont.
<p>Spatial distribution map of CMADS precipitation and extreme precipitation thresholds corresponding to meteorological stations within eight days after a typical flood event occurred (“value” represents “daily precipitation”). Please note, stars represent meteorological stations with daily precipitation close to or above the extreme precipitation threshold.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10 Cont.
<p>Spatial distribution map of CMADS precipitation and extreme precipitation thresholds corresponding to meteorological stations within eight days after a typical flood event occurred (“value” represents “daily precipitation”). Please note, stars represent meteorological stations with daily precipitation close to or above the extreme precipitation threshold.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10 Cont.
<p>Spatial distribution map of CMADS precipitation and extreme precipitation thresholds corresponding to meteorological stations within eight days after a typical flood event occurred (“value” represents “daily precipitation”). Please note, stars represent meteorological stations with daily precipitation close to or above the extreme precipitation threshold.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10 Cont.
<p>Spatial distribution map of CMADS precipitation and extreme precipitation thresholds corresponding to meteorological stations within eight days after a typical flood event occurred (“value” represents “daily precipitation”). Please note, stars represent meteorological stations with daily precipitation close to or above the extreme precipitation threshold.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Spatial distribution map of CMADS maximum temperature and extreme high temperature thresholds corresponding to the meteorological stations.</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>Spatial distribution of the maximum daily temperature of typical flood events (based on CMADS).</p>
Full article ">
19 pages, 3713 KiB  
Article
Predicting Tropical Monsoon Hydrology Using CFSR and CMADS Data over the Cau River Basin in Vietnam
by Duy Minh Dao, Jianzhong Lu, Xiaoling Chen, Sameh A. Kantoush, Doan Van Binh, Phamchimai Phan and Nguyen Xuan Tung
Water 2021, 13(9), 1314; https://doi.org/10.3390/w13091314 - 8 May 2021
Cited by 10 | Viewed by 3521
Abstract
To improve knowledge of this matter, the potential application of two gridded meteorological products (GMPs), the China Meteorological Assimilation Driving Datasets for the SWAT model (CMADS) and Climate Forecast System Reanalysis (CFSR), are compared for the first time with data from ground-based meteorological [...] Read more.
To improve knowledge of this matter, the potential application of two gridded meteorological products (GMPs), the China Meteorological Assimilation Driving Datasets for the SWAT model (CMADS) and Climate Forecast System Reanalysis (CFSR), are compared for the first time with data from ground-based meteorological stations over 6 years, from 2008 to 2013, over the Cau River basin (CRB), northern Vietnam. Statistical indicators and the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) model are employed to investigate the hydrological performances of the GMPs against the data of 17 rain gauges distributed across the CRB. The results show that there are strong correlations between the temperature reanalysis products in both CMADS and CFSR and those obtained from the ground-based observations (the correlation coefficients range from 0.92 to 0.97). The CFSR data overestimate precipitation (percentage bias approximately 99%) at both daily and monthly scales, whereas the CMADS product performs better, with obvious differences (compared to the ground-based observations) in high-terrain areas. Regarding the simulated river flows, CFSR-SWAT produced “unsatisfactory”, while CMADS-SWAT (R2 > 0.76 and NSE > 0.78) performs better than CFSR-SWAT on the monthly scale. This assessment of the applicative potential of GMPs, especially CMADS, may further provide an additional rapid alternative for water resource research and management in basins with similar hydro-meteorological conditions. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Water and the Ecosphere in the Anthropocene)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Map of the Cau River basin: (<b>a</b>) location, digital elevation model (DEM), river systems, ground-based meteorological station (GMS) and hydrological station; (<b>b</b>) land use map.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Box plots of daily maximum (<b>a</b>–<b>d</b>) and minimum (<b>e</b>–<b>h</b>) temperatures from CFSR and CMADS at the Bac Kan, Dinh Hoa, Thai Nguyen and Bac Ninh meteorological stations.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Spatial distributions of the correlation coefficient (CC) on the daily (<b>a</b>,<b>b</b>) and monthly (<b>c</b>,<b>d</b>) scales and of MAE (mm/month) (<b>e</b>,<b>f</b>) and PBIAS (%) (<b>g</b>,<b>h</b>) on the monthly scale in the Cau River basin over the period from 2008–2013.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Occurrence frequencies (<b>a</b>) and relative contributions (<b>b</b>) of daily-scale rainfall thresholds obtained from the CFSR, CMADS and GMS data for the period 2008–2013.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Number of days when hot weather occurred in the period 2008–2013.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Observed streamflow and simulations performed using the GMS-, CFSR-, and CMADS-driven models at the daily scale over the CRB.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Observed streamflow and simulations obtained using the GMS-, CFSR-, and CMADS-driven models at the monthly scale over the CRB.</p>
Full article ">
18 pages, 4581 KiB  
Article
Evaluating the SSEBop and RSPMPT Models for Irrigated Fields Daily Evapotranspiration Mapping with MODIS and CMADS Data
by Qifeng Zhuang, Yintao Shi, Hua Shao, Gang Zhao and Dong Chen
Agriculture 2021, 11(5), 424; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11050424 - 8 May 2021
Cited by 4 | Viewed by 2092
Abstract
It is of great convenience to map daily evapotranspiration (ET) by remote sensing for agricultural water management without computing each surface energy component. This study used the operational simplified surface energy balance (SSEBop) and the remote sensing-based Penman–Monteith and Priestly–Taylor (RSPMPT) models to [...] Read more.
It is of great convenience to map daily evapotranspiration (ET) by remote sensing for agricultural water management without computing each surface energy component. This study used the operational simplified surface energy balance (SSEBop) and the remote sensing-based Penman–Monteith and Priestly–Taylor (RSPMPT) models to compute continuous daily ET over irrigated fields with the MODIS and CMADS data. The estimations were validated with eddy covariance (EC) measurements. Overall, the performance of RSPMPT with locally calibrated parameters was slightly better than that of SSEBop, with higher NSE (0.84 vs. 0.78) and R2 (0.86 vs. 0.81), lower RMSE (0.78 mm·d−1 vs. 0.90 mm·d−1), although it had higher bias (0.03 mm·d−1 vs. 0.01 mm·d−1) and PBias (1.41% vs. 0.59%). Due to the consideration of land surface temperature, the SSEBop was more sensitive to ET’s change caused by irrigation before sowing in March and had a lower PBias (6.7% vs. 39.8%) than RSPMPT. On cloudy days, the SSEBop is more likely to overestimate ET than the RSPMPT. To conclude, driven by MODIS and CMADS data, the two simple models can be easily applied to map daily ET over cropland. The SSEBop is more practical in the absence of measured data to optimize the RSPMPT model parameters. Full article
(This article belongs to the Section Agricultural Water Management)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>(<b>a</b>) The standard false-color composite image for the oasis–desert area from the GF1 WFV3 sensor in 2016; (<b>b</b>) the land-use type from MCD12Q1 IGBP class product.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Comparisons of daily net radiation estimated from different methods with AWS measured ground truth.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Comparisons of daily ET (<b>a</b>) and monthly ET (<b>b</b>) derived from different approaches with EC measured ground truth.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Annual accumulated evapotranspiration of the study area derived from the three approaches (RSPMPT-CMADS, SSEBop-CMADS, SSEBop-Global) from 2013 to 2016.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Density scatter plots of the RSPMPT-CMADS and SSEBop-CMADS estimated annual evapotranspiration from 2013 to 2016.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>The scatter plots for the two methods (RSPMPT-CMADS and SSEBop-CMADS) estimated ET versus EC observed ET on clear and cloudy days.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>The mean meteorological variables from monthly averaged CMADS daily data from 2013 to 2016 around the AWS station.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>The minimum, maximum, median, and average values of C factors calculated over croplands and all vegetation types, respectively, in the SSEBop model.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>The regional mean daily values of ET fraction (<span class="html-italic">ET<sub>f</sub></span>) calculated over croplands and all vegetation types, respectively.</p>
Full article ">
16 pages, 2741 KiB  
Article
Comparison of NCEP-CFSR and CMADS for Hydrological Modelling Using SWAT in the Muda River Basin, Malaysia
by Dandan Zhang, Mou Leong Tan, Sharifah Rohayah Sheikh Dawood, Narimah Samat, Chun Kiat Chang, Ranjan Roy, Yi Lin Tew and Mohd Amirul Mahamud
Water 2020, 12(11), 3288; https://doi.org/10.3390/w12113288 - 23 Nov 2020
Cited by 13 | Viewed by 3694
Abstract
Identification of reliable alternative climate input data for hydrological modelling is important to manage water resources and reduce water-related hazards in ungauged or poorly gauged basins. This study aims to evaluate the capability of the National Centers for Environmental Prediction Climate Forecast System [...] Read more.
Identification of reliable alternative climate input data for hydrological modelling is important to manage water resources and reduce water-related hazards in ungauged or poorly gauged basins. This study aims to evaluate the capability of the National Centers for Environmental Prediction Climate Forecast System Reanalysis (NCEP-CFSR) and China Meteorological Assimilation Driving Dataset for the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) model (CMADS) for simulating streamflow in the Muda River Basin (MRB), Malaysia. The capability was evaluated in two perspectives: (1) the climate aspect—validation of precipitation, maximum and minimum temperatures from 2008 to 2014; and (2) the hydrology aspect—comparison of the accuracy of SWAT modelling by the gauge station, NCEP-CFSR and CMADS products. The results show that CMADS had a better performance than NCEP-CFSR in the climate aspect, especially for the temperature data and daily precipitation detection capability. For the hydrological aspect, the gauge station had a “very good” performance in a monthly streamflow simulation, followed by CMADS and NCEP-CFSR. In detail, CMADS showed an acceptable performance in SWAT modelling, but some improvements such as bias correction and further SWAT calibration are needed. In contrast, NCEP-CFRS had an unacceptable performance in validation as it dramatically overestimated the low flows of MRB and contains time lag in peak flows estimation. Full article
(This article belongs to the Section Hydrology)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Muda River basin.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Scatter plots of gauge stations with (<b>a</b>–<b>c</b>) NCEP-CFSR and (<b>d</b>–<b>f</b>) CMADS in daily precipitation (Pcp), daily maximum temperature (Tmax) and daily minimum temperature (Tmin) estimations.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Scatter plots of gauge stations with (<b>a</b>–<b>c</b>) NCEP-CFSR and (<b>d</b>–<b>f</b>) CMADS in monthly precipitation (Pcp), monthly maximum temperature (Tmax) and monthly minimum temperature (Tmin) estimations.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Observed monthly runoff and SWAT model simulations at the hydrological stations during the calibration period (2009–2011) and validation period (2012–2014).</p>
Full article ">
22 pages, 1987 KiB  
Article
Multi-Scenario Integration Comparison of CMADS and TMPA Datasets for Hydro-Climatic Simulation over Ganjiang River Basin, China
by Qiang Wang, Jun Xia, Xiang Zhang, Dunxian She, Jie Liu and Pengjun Li
Water 2020, 12(11), 3243; https://doi.org/10.3390/w12113243 - 19 Nov 2020
Cited by 9 | Viewed by 2035
Abstract
The lack of meteorological observation data limits the hydro-climatic analysis and modeling, especially for the ungauged or data-limited regions, while satellite and reanalysis products can provide potential data sources in these regions. In this study, three daily products, including two satellite products (Tropic [...] Read more.
The lack of meteorological observation data limits the hydro-climatic analysis and modeling, especially for the ungauged or data-limited regions, while satellite and reanalysis products can provide potential data sources in these regions. In this study, three daily products, including two satellite products (Tropic Rainfall Measuring Mission Multi-Satellite Precipitation Analysis, TMPA 3B42 and 3B42RT) and one reanalysis product (China Meteorological Assimilation Driving Datasets for the SWAT Model, CMADS), were used to assess the capacity of hydro-climatic simulation based on the statistical method and hydrological model in Ganjiang River Basin (GRB), a humid basin of southern China. CAMDS, TMPA 3B42 and 3B42RT precipitation were evaluated against ground-based observation based on multiple statistical metrics at different temporal scales. The similar evaluation was carried out for CMADS temperature. Then, eight scenarios were constructed into calibrating the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) model and simulating streamflow, to assess their capacity in hydrological simulation. The results showed that CMADS data performed better in precipitation estimation than TMPA 3B42 and 3B42RT at daily and monthly scales, while worse at the annual scale. In addition, CMADS can capture the spatial distribution of precipitation well. Moreover, the CMADS daily temperature data agreed well with observations at meteorological stations. For hydrological simulations, streamflow simulation results driven by eight input scenarios obtained acceptable performance according to model evaluation criteria. Compared with the simulation results, the models driven by ground-based observation precipitation obtained the most accurate streamflow simulation results, followed by CMADS, TMPA 3B42 and 3B42RT precipitation. Besides, CMADS temperature can capture the spatial distribution characteristics well and improve the streamflow simulations. This study provides valuable insights for hydro-climatic application of satellite and reanalysis meteorological products in the ungauged or data-limited regions. Full article
(This article belongs to the Section Hydrology)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Sketch map of the Ganjiang River Basin (GRB) and corresponding rain gauges, meteorological stations and streamflow gauge.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Scatterplots of precipitation comparison at selected pixels with rain gauges for CMADS (left column), 3B42 (middle column) and 3B42RT (right column) in the GRB: (<b>a</b>–<b>c</b>) at the daily time scale, (<b>d</b>–<b>f</b>) at the monthly time scale and (<b>g</b>–<b>i</b>) at the annual time scale. The diagonal line is blue, and the best-fit line estimated by the OLS (ordinary least square) method is red.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Spatial distribution of statistical metrics at selected pixels with rain gauges for CMADS (left column), 3B42 (middle column) and 3B42 RT (right column) in the GRB: (<b>a</b>–<b>c</b>) CC, (<b>d</b>–<b>f</b>) RMSE and (<b>g</b>–<b>i</b>) RB.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Box plots of temperature estimated from meteorological gauges and CMADS in the GRB for (<b>a</b>) daily maximum temperature and (<b>b</b>) daily minimum temperature (GC: Guangchang; GZ: Ganzhou; JA: Jian; JGS: Jianggangshan; NC: Nanchang; SC: Suichuan; XN: Xunnian; YC: Yichun; ZS: Zhangshu, shown in <a href="#water-12-03243-f001" class="html-fig">Figure 1</a>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Comparison of daily observed streamflow with SWAT-simulated streamflow driven by (<b>a</b>) Obs + Obs, (<b>b</b>) CMADS + Obs, (<b>c</b>) 3B42 + Obs and (<b>d</b>) 3B42RT + Obs input scenarios, respectively.</p>
Full article ">
20 pages, 3698 KiB  
Article
Comparison Study of Multiple Precipitation Forcing Data on Hydrological Modeling and Projection in the Qujiang River Basin
by Yongyu Song, Jing Zhang, Xianyong Meng, Yuyan Zhou, Yuequn Lai and Yang Cao
Water 2020, 12(9), 2626; https://doi.org/10.3390/w12092626 - 19 Sep 2020
Cited by 18 | Viewed by 3362
Abstract
As a key factor in the water cycle and climate change, the quality of precipitation data directly affects the hydrological processes of the river basin. Although many precipitation products with high spatial and temporal resolutions are now widely used, it is meaningful and [...] Read more.
As a key factor in the water cycle and climate change, the quality of precipitation data directly affects the hydrological processes of the river basin. Although many precipitation products with high spatial and temporal resolutions are now widely used, it is meaningful and necessary to investigate and evaluate their merits and demerits in hydrological applications. In this study, two satellite-based precipitation products (Tropical Rainfall Measurement Mission, TRMM; Integrated Multi-satellite Retrievals for GPM, IMERG) and one reanalysis precipitation product (China Meteorological Assimilation Driving Datasets for the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) model, CMADS) are studied to compare their streamflow simulation performance in the Qujiang River Basin, China, using the SWAT model with gauged rainfall data as a reference. The main conclusions are as follows: (1) CMADS has stronger precipitation detection capabilities compared to gauged rainfall, while TRMM results in the most obvious overestimation in the four sub-basins. (2) In daily and monthly streamflow simulations, CMADS + SWAT mode offers the best performance. CMADS and IMERG can provide high quality precipitation data for data-scarce areas, and IMERG can effectively avoid the overestimation of streamflow caused by TRMM, especially on a daily scale. (3) The runoff projections of the three modes under RCP (Representative Concentration Pathway) 4.5 was higher than that of RCP 8.5 on the whole. IMERG + SWAT overestimates the surface water resources of the basin compared to CMADS + SWAT, while TRMM + SWAT provides the most stable uncertainty. These findings contribute to the comparison of the differences among the three precipitation products and provides a reference for the selection of precipitation data in similar regions. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Map of the Qujiang River Basin with the DEM (Digital Elevation Model) showing meteorological and hydrological stations.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Spatial attribute distribution of the Qujiang River basin: (<b>a</b>) land use cover and (<b>b</b>) soil types.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Box plots for the categorical metrics values (Proportion Correct (PC), Probability of Detection (POD), Frequency Bias Index (FBI), False Alarm Ratio (FAR), and Calibration Critical Success Index (CCSI)) of the precipitation detection capacity. The hollow circle represents the mean value, the middle line in the box represents, the median value, and each box ranges from the lower (25th) to the upper quartile (75th).</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>The Performance metrics (Coefficient of Determination (R<sup>2</sup>), Nash-Sutcliffe Efficiency (NSE), and PBIAS) of the four modes of daily streamflow simulations.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>The hydrograph and streamflow frequency curve of the daily streamflow in the calibration and validation periods. (<b>a</b>,<b>b</b>) Luoduxi (LDX); (<b>c</b>,<b>d</b>) Fengtan (FT); (<b>e</b>,<b>f</b>) Qilituo (QLT); (<b>g</b>,<b>h</b>) Bixi (BX).</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>The Performance metrics (R<sup>2</sup>, NSE, and PBIAS) of the four modes of monthly streamflow simulations.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>The hydrograph and scatterplot (dashed line represents linear fit) of the monthly streamflow in the calibration and validation period. (<b>a</b>,<b>b</b>) LDX; (<b>c</b>,<b>d</b>) FT; (<b>e</b>,<b>f</b>) QLT; (<b>g</b>,<b>h</b>) BX.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>The uncertainty of the annual average runoff projection results of the three modes (CMADS + SWAT, IMERG + SWAT, and TRMM + SWAT) in 2021–2040 under RCP4.5 and RCP8.5. The hollow circle represents the mean value, the middle line in the box represent the median value, and each box ranges from the lower (25th) to upper quartile (75th).</p>
Full article ">
Back to TopTop