| Volumes and Issues Contents of Issue 2 Special Issue |
www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci-discuss.net/6/3199/2009/
doi:10.5194/hessd-6-3199-2009
© Author(s) 2009. This work is distributed
under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
Comparative predictions of discharge from an artificial catchment (Chicken Creek) using sparse data
1Chair of Hydrology and Water Resources Management, Brandenburg University of Technology Cottbus, 03046 Cottbus, Germany
2Institute of Geoecology, University of Potsdam, 14476 Potsdam, Germany
3Department of Biology and Environmental Sciences, Carl von Ossietzky University of Oldenburg, 26129 Oldenburg, Germany
4School of Geographical Sciences, University of Bristol, BS8 1SS, UK
5Dipartimento di ingegneria agraria e agronomia del territorio, Università di Napoli Federico II, 80055 Naples, Italy
6Institute for Landscape Ecology and Resources Management, University of Giessen, 35392 Giessen, Germany
7Department of Land and Water Resources Engineering, Royal Institute of Technology KTH, 10044 Stockholm, Sweden
8Department of Geography, University of Bonn, 53113 Bonn, Germany
9Department Environmental Chemistry, Eawag, 8600 Dübendorf, Switzerland
10Institute of Environmental Engineering, ETH Zürich 8093 Zürich, Switzerland
11Institute of Hydraulic Engineering and Water Resources Management, TU Vienna, 1040 Vienna, Austria
12Department of Environmental Sciences, ETH Zürich, 8092 Zürich, Switzerland
Abstract. We used ten conceptually different models to predict discharge from the artificial Chicken Creek catchment in North-East Germany. Soil textural and topography data were given to the modellers, but discharge data were 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. the predicted actual evapotranspiration ranged from 88 to 579 mm/y and the discharge from 19 to 346 mm/y. All model simulations revealed systematic deviations between observations of major components of the hydrological cycle (not known to the modellers) and the simulation results. Discharge was predicted mainly 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) was systematically overestimated by nine of ten models as was the ratio between actual and potential ET. Overall, none of the model simulations came close to the correct water balance during the entire 3-year study period. The comparison indicated that the personal judgement of the modellers was a major source of the differences between the model results. The most important parameters to be guessed were the soil parameters and the initial soil water content while plant parameterization had in this particular case of a sparse vegetation only a minor influence on the results.
Discussion Paper (PDF, 4842 KB) Supplement (40 KB) Interactive Discussion (Closed, 4 Comments) Final Revised Paper (HESS)
Citation: Holländer, H. M., Blume, T., Bormann, H., Buytaert, W., Chirico, G. B., Exbrayat, J.-F., Gustafsson, D., Hölzel, H., Kraft, P., Stamm, C., Stoll, S., Blöschl, G., and Flühler, H.: Comparative predictions of discharge from an artificial catchment (Chicken Creek) using sparse data, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss., 6, 3199-3260, doi:10.5194/hessd-6-3199-2009, 2009. Bibtex EndNote Reference Manager XML
