Search

Central America is frequently affected by droughts that cause significant socio-economic and environmental problems. Drought characterisation, monitoring and forecasting are potentially useful to support water resource management. Drought indices are designed for these purposes, but their ability to characterise droughts depends on the characteristics of the regional climate and the quality of the available data. Local comprehensive and high-quality observational networks of meteorological and hydrological data are not available, which limits the choice of drought indices and makes it important to assess available datasets. This study evaluated which combinations of drought index and meteorological dataset were most suitable for characterising droughts in the region. We evaluated the standardised precipitation index (SPI), a modified version of the deciles index (DI), the standardised precipitation evapotranspiration index (SPEI) and the effective drought index (EDI). These were calculated using precipitation data from the Climate Hazards Group Infra-Red Precipitation with Station (CHIRPS), the CRN073 dataset, the Climate Research Unit (CRU), ECMWF Reanalysis (ERA-Interim) and a regional station dataset, and temperature from the CRU and ERA-Interim datasets. The gridded meteorological precipitation datasets were compared to assess how well they captured key features of the regional climate. The performance of all the drought indices calculated with all the meteorological datasets was then evaluated against a drought index calculated using river discharge data. Results showed that the selection of database was more important than the selection of drought index and that the best combinations were the EDI and DI calculated with CHIRPS and CRN073. Results also highlighted the importance of including indices like SPEI for drought assessment in Central America. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Information about rainfall-runoff processes is essential for hydrological analyses, modelling and watermanagement applications. A hydrological, or diagnostic, signature quantifies such information from observed data as an index value. Signatures are widely used, e.g. for catchment classification, model calibration and change detection. Uncertainties in the observed data - including measurement inaccuracy and representativeness as well as errors relating to data management - propagate to the signature values and reduce their information content. Subjective choices in the calculation method are a further source of uncertainty. We review the uncertainties relevant to different signatures based on rainfall and flow data. We propose a generally applicable method to calculate these uncertainties based on Monte Carlo sampling and demonstrate it in two catchments for common signatures including rainfall-runoff thresholds, recession analysis and basic descriptive signatures of flow distribution and dynamics. Our intention is to contribute to awareness and knowledge of signature uncertainty, including typical sources, magnitude and methods for its assessment. We found that the uncertainties were often large (i.e. typical intervals of ±10-40% relative uncertainty) and highly variable between signatures. There was greater uncertainty in signatures that use high-frequency responses, small data subsets, or subsets prone to measurement errors. There was lower uncertainty in signatures that use spatial or temporal averages. Some signatures were sensitive to particular uncertainty types such as rating-curve form. We found that signatures can be designed to be robust to some uncertainty sources. Signature uncertainties of the magnitudes we found have the potential to change the conclusions of hydrological and ecohydrological analyses, such as cross-catchment comparisons or inferences about dominant processes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Benchmarking the quality of river discharge data and understanding its information content for hydrological analyses is an important task for hydrologic science. There is a wide variety of techniques to assess discharge uncertainty. However, few studies have developed generalized approaches to quantify discharge uncertainty. This study presents a generalized framework for estimating discharge uncertainty at many gauging stations with different errors in the stage-discharge relationship. The methodology utilizes a nonparametric LOWESS regression within a novel framework that accounts for uncertainty in the stage-discharge measurements, scatter in the stage-discharge data and multisection rating curves. The framework was applied to 500 gauging stations in England and Wales and we evaluated the magnitude of discharge uncertainty at low, mean and high flow points on the rating curve. The framework was shown to be robust, versatile and able to capture place-specific uncertainties for a number of different examples. Our study revealed a wide range of discharge uncertainties (10-397% discharge uncertainty interval widths), but the majority of the gauging stations (over 80%) had mean and high flow uncertainty intervals of less than 40%. We identified some regional differences in the stage-discharge relationships, however the results show that local conditions dominated in determining the magnitude of discharge uncertainty at a gauging station. This highlights the importance of estimating discharge uncertainty for each gauging station prior to using those data in hydrological analyses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Information about rainfall-runoff processes is essential for hydrological analyses, modelling and water-management applications. A hydrological, or diagnostic, signature quantifies such information from observed data as an index value. Signatures are widely used, including for catchment classification, model calibration and change detection. Uncertainties in the observed data - including measurement inaccuracy and representativeness as well as errors relating to data management - propagate to the signature values and reduce their information content. Subjective choices in the calculation method are a further source of uncertainty. We review the uncertainties relevant to different signatures based on rainfall and flow data. We propose a generally applicable method to calculate these uncertainties based on Monte Carlo sampling and demonstrate it in two catchments for common signatures including rainfall-runoff thresholds, recession analysis and basic descriptive signatures of flow distribution and dynamics. Our intention is to contribute to awareness and knowledge of signature uncertainty, including typical sources, magnitude and methods for its assessment. We found that the uncertainties were often large (i.e. typical intervals of ±10-40% relative uncertainty) and highly variable between signatures. There was greater uncertainty in signatures that use high-frequency responses, small data subsets, or subsets prone to measurement errors. There was lower uncertainty in signatures that use spatial or temporal averages. Some signatures were sensitive to particular uncertainty types such as rating-curve form. We found that signatures can be designed to be robust to some uncertainty sources. Signature uncertainties of the magnitudes we found have the potential to change the conclusions of hydrological and ecohydrological analyses, such as cross-catchment comparisons or inferences about dominant processes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

River discharge values, estimated using a rating curve, are subject to both random and epistemic errors. We present a new likelihood function, the 'Voting Point' likelihood that accounts for both error types and enables generation of multiple possible multisegment power-law rating curve samples that aim to represent the total uncertainty. The rating curve samples can be used for subsequent discharge analysis that needs total uncertainty estimation, e.g. regionalisation studies or calculation of hydrological signatures. We demonstrate the method using four catchments with diverse rating curve error characteristics, where epistemic uncertainty sources include weed growth, scour and redeposition of the bed gravels in a braided river, and unconfined high flows. The results show that typically, the posterior rating curve distributions include all of the gauging points and succeed in representing the spread of discharge values caused by epistemic rating errors. We aim to provide a useful method for hydrology practitioners to assess rating curve, and hence discharge, uncertainty that is easily applicable to a wide range of catchments and does not require prior specification of the particular types and causes of epistemic error at the gauged location. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Large-scale hydrological modelling has become an important tool for the study of global and regional water resources, climate impacts, and water-resources management. However, modelling efforts over large spatial domains are fraught with problems of data scarcity, uncertainties and inconsistencies between model forcing and evaluation data. Model-independent methods to screen and analyse data for such problems are needed. This study aimed at identifying data inconsistencies in global datasets using a pre-modelling analysis, inconsistencies that can be disinformative for subsequent modelling. The consistency between (i) basin areas for different hydrographic datasets, and (ii) between climate data (precipitation and potential evaporation) and discharge data, was examined in terms of how well basin areas were represented in the flow networks and the possibility of water-balance closure. It was found that (i) most basins could be well represented in both gridded basin delineations and polygon-based ones, but some basins exhibited large area discrepancies between flow-network datasets and archived basin areas, (ii) basins exhibiting too-high runoff coefficients were abundant in areas where precipitation data were likely affected by snow undercatch, and (iii) the occurrence of basins exhibiting losses exceeding the potential-evaporation limit was strongly dependent on the potential-evaporation data, both in terms of numbers and geographical distribution. Some inconsistencies may be resolved by considering sub-grid variability in climate data, surface-dependent potential-evaporation estimates, etc., but further studies are needed to determine the reasons for the inconsistencies found. Our results emphasise the need for pre-modelling data analysis to identify dataset inconsistencies as an important first step in any large-scale study. Applying data-screening methods before modelling should also increase our chances to draw robust conclusions from subsequent model simulations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Large-scale hydrological modelling has become an important tool for the study of global and regional water resources, climate impacts, and water-resources management. However, modelling efforts over large spatial domains are fraught with problems of data scarcity, uncertainties and inconsistencies between forcing and evaluation data. Model-independent methods to screen and analyse data for such problems are needed. This study aims at identifying data inconsistencies in global datasets using a pre-modelling analysis, inconsistencies that can be disinformative for subsequent modelling. The consistency between different hydrographic datasets, and between climate data (precipitation and potential evaporation), and discharge data was examined in terms of how well basin areas were represented in the flow networks and the possibility of water-balance closure. It was found that: (i) most basins could be well represented in both gridded basin delineations and polygon-based ones, but some basins exhibited large area discrepancies between flow-network datasets and archived basin areas, (ii) basins exhibiting too-high runoff coefficients were abundant in areas where precipitation data were likely affected by snow undercatch, and (iii) the occurrence of basins exhibiting losses exceeding the energy limit was strongly dependent on the potentialevaporation data, both in terms of numbers and geographical distribution. These results emphasise the need for pre-modelling data analysis to identify dataset inconsistencies as an important first step in any large-scale study. Applying data-screening methods before modelling should also increase our chances to draw robust conclusions from subsequent simulations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The degree of belief we have in predictions from hydrologic models will normally depend on how well they can reproduce observations. Calibrations with traditional performance measures, such as the Nash-Sutcliffe model efficiency, are challenged by problems including: (1) uncertain discharge data, (2) variable sensitivity of different performance measures to different flow magnitudes, (3) influence of unknown input/output errors and (4) inability to evaluate model performance when observation time periods for discharge and model input data do not overlap. This paper explores a calibration method using flow-duration curves (FDCs) to address these problems. The method focuses on reproducing the observed discharge frequency distribution rather than the exact hydrograph. It consists of applying limits of acceptability for selected evaluation points (EPs) on the observed uncertain FDC in the extended GLUE approach. Two ways of selecting the EPs were tested -- based on equal intervals of discharge and of volume of water. The method was tested and compared to a calibration using the traditional model efficiency for the daily four-parameter WAS-MOD model in the Paso La Ceiba catchment in Honduras and for Dynamic TOPMODEL evaluated at an hourly time scale for the Brue catchment in Great Britain. The volume method of selecting EPs gave the best results in both catchments with better calibrated slow flow, recession and evaporation than the other criteria. Observed and simulated time series of uncertain discharges agreed better for this method both in calibration and prediction in both catchments. An advantage with the method is that the rejection criterion is based on an estimation of the uncertainty in discharge data and that the EPs of the FDC can be chosen to reflect the aims of the modelling application, e.g. using more/less EPs at high/low flows. While the method appears less sensitive to epistemic input/output errors than previous use of limits of acceptability applied directly to the time series of discharge, it still requires a reasonable representation of the distribution of inputs. Additional constraints might therefore be required in catchments subject to snow and where peak-flow timing at sub-daily time scales is of high importance. The results suggest that the calibration method can be useful when observation time periods for discharge and model input data do not overlap. The method could also be suitable for calibration to regional FDCs while taking uncertainties in the hydrological model and data into account. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Uncertainty in discharge data must be critically assessed before data can be used in, e.g. water resources estimation or hydrological modelling. In the alluvial Choluteca River in Honduras, the river-bed characteristics change over time as fill, scour and other processes occur in the channel, leading to a non-stationary stage-discharge relationship and difficulties in deriving consistent rating curves. Few studies have investigated the uncertainties related to non-stationarity in the stage-discharge relationship. We calculated discharge and the associated uncertainty with a weighted fuzzy regression of rating curves applied within a moving time window, based on estimated uncertainties in the observed rating data. An 18-year-long dataset with unusually frequent ratings (1268 in total) was the basis of this study. A large temporal variability in the stage-discharge relationship was found especially for low flows. The time-variable rating curve resulted in discharge estimate differences of − 60 to + 90% for low flows and ± 20% for medium to high flows when compared to a constant rating curve. The final estimated uncertainty in discharge was substantial and the uncertainty limits varied between − 43 to + 73% of the best discharge estimate. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The degree of belief we have in predictions from hydrologic models depends on how well they can reproduce observations. Calibrations with traditional performance measures such as the Nash-Sutcliffe model efficiency are challenged by problems including: (1) uncertain discharge data, (2) variable importance of the performance with flow magnitudes, (3) influence of unknown input/output errors and (4) inability to evaluate model performance when observation time periods for discharge and model input data do not overlap. A new calibration method using flow-duration curves (FDCs) was developed which addresses these problems. The method focuses on reproducing the observed discharge frequency distribution rather than the exact hydrograph. It consists of applying limits of acceptability for selected evaluation points (EPs) of the observed uncertain FDC in the extended GLUE approach. Two ways of selecting the EPs were tested -- based on equal intervals of discharge and of volume of water. The method was tested and compared to a calibration using the traditional model efficiency for the daily four-parameter WASMOD model in the Paso La Ceiba catchment in Honduras and for Dynamic TOPMODEL evaluated at an hourly time scale for the Brue catchment in Great Britain. The volume method of selecting EPs gave the best results in both catchments with better calibrated slow flow, recession and evaporation than the other criteria. Observed and simulated time series of uncertain discharges agreed better for this method both in calibration and prediction in both catchments without resulting in overpredicted simulated uncertainty. An advantage with the method is that the rejection criterion is based on an estimation of the uncertainty in discharge data and that the EPs of the FDC can be chosen to reflect the aims of the modelling application e.g. using more/less EPs at high/low flows. While the new method is less sensitive to epistemic input/output errors than the normal use of limits of acceptability applied directly to the time series of discharge, it still requires a reasonable representation of the distribution of inputs. Additional constraints might therefore be required in catchments subject to snow. The results suggest that the new calibration method can be useful when observation time periods for discharge and model input data do not overlap. The new method could also be suitable for calibration to regional FDCs while taking uncertainties in the hydrological model and data into account. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An accurate description of temporal and spatial precipitation variability in Central America is important for local farming, water supply and flood management. Data quality problems and lack of consistent precipitation data impede hydrometeorological analysis in the 7,500 km2 Choluteca River basin in central Honduras, encompassing the capital Tegucigalpa. We used precipitation data from 60 daily and 13 monthly stations in 1913–2006 from five local authorities and NOAA's Global Historical Climatology Network. Quality control routines were developed to tackle the specific data quality problems. The quality-controlled data were characterised spatially and temporally, and compared with regional and larger-scale studies. Two gap-filling methods for daily data and three interpolation methods for monthly and mean annual precipitation were compared. The coefficient-of-correlation-weighting method provided the best results for gap-filling and the universal kriging method for spatial interpolation. In-homogeneity in the time series was the main quality problem, and 22% of the daily precipitation data were too poor to be used. Spatial autocorrelation for monthly precipitation was low during the dry season, and correlation increased markedly when data were temporally aggregated from a daily time scale to 4–5 days. The analysis manifested the high spatial and temporal variability caused by the diverse precipitation-generating mechanisms and the need for an improved monitoring network. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]