KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Coğrafya Dergisi / 2022 / Sayı: 45

Tüm Modeller Yanlıştır, Ancak Bazıları Faydalıdır: Akım Gözlem İstasyonu Bulunmayan Havzalarda Düşük (Kurak) ve Yüksek (Taşkın) Akım Davranışlarının Belirlenmesi

All Models Are Wrong, But Some Are Useful: Determining the Low (Drought) and High (Flood) Flow Characteristics in Ungauged Basins

Abdullah Akbaş(Bursa Uludağ Üniversitesi)0000-0003-2024-0565
Hasan Özdemir(Bursa Uludağ Üniversitesi)0000-0001-8885-9298
Sayfa
33–46
Yayın Tarihi
2022-12-30
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Hidrolojik modellemeler bu bağlamda iklim değişikliği ve arazi kullanımı değişiminin anlaşılması açısından planlama ve havza yönetimi açısından fırsatlar sunmaktadır.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Havzalarda aletli gözlemler havza süreçlerini anlamak için oldukça önemli bir konuma sahip olmasına rağmen tüm alanlarda aletli gözlem verilerini bulmak oldukça zordur.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Bu çalışma ile akım gözlem istasyonu (AGİ) olmayan havzalarda düşük/yüksek akım karakteristiklerinin SWAT ile modellenmesi ve gözlemle arasındaki farklılıklarının karşılaştırılması amaçlanmıştır.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Hidrolojik modellemeler bu bağlamda iklim değişikliği ve arazi kullanımı değişiminin anlaşılması açısından planlama ve havza yönetimi açısından fırsatlar sunmaktadır.
🔬Tür:Modelleme & Sayısal Simülasyon
📍Kapsam:90 adet
⚙️Değişkenler:Hidrolojik Modelleme · Taşkın/Kuraklık · SWAT

Özet

Havzalarda aletli gözlemler havza süreçlerini anlamak için oldukça önemli bir konuma sahip olmasına rağmen tüm alanlarda aletli gözlem verilerini bulmak oldukça zordur. Bu çalışma ile akım gözlem istasyonu (AGİ) olmayan havzalarda düşük/yüksek akım karakteristiklerinin SWAT ile modellenmesi ve gözlemle arasındaki farklılıklarının karşılaştırılması amaçlanmıştır. Bu amaçla, Bartın Çayı havzası örnek alan olarak seçilmiş ve ALOS SYM temelinde 90 adet alt-havza çıkarılmıştır. Bu havzalarda arazi kullanımı, eğim ve toprak verisi çakıştırılarak Hidrolojik Tepki Birimleri/HRU elde edilmiştir. HRU ve havza içinde tüm hidrolojik süreçler su dengesi temelinde elde edilen meteorolojik verilerle simüle edilmiştir. Model sonuçları, E13A031 istasyonuna dayalı olarak SWAT-CUP vasıtasıyla kalibre edilmiştir. Modellenen sonuçların havza içi süreçleri modellemek için yeterli olduğu görülmüştür. Elde edilen sonuçlara göre hem düşük hem de yüksek akımlara ait farklı zaman serisi karakteristikleri (büyüklük, sıklık, süre, zamanlama) hesaplanmış ve gözlem verisiyle karşılaştırılmıştır. Modellenen düşük ve yüksek akım metrikleri genel olarak gözlem ile uyuşsa da, birçok belirsizlik kaynağından dolayı bazı akım metriklerini fazla veya düşük hesapladığını göstermiştir. Öte yandan, tüm alt-havzalara ait metrikler hesaplanmıştır. Sonuçlara göre, Kocanaz havzası diğer havzalara oranla düşük ve yüksek akım metriklerinde farklılık yansıtmıştır. Hidrolojik modellemeler bu bağlamda iklim değişikliği ve arazi kullanımı değişiminin anlaşılması açısından planlama ve havza yönetimi açısından fırsatlar sunmaktadır.

Abstract

Although instrumental observations in the basin are essential for understanding the basin processes, it is challenging to have observational data in all locations. Therefore, this study aims to simulate the low/high flows and compare them with observation. With this aim, 90 sub-basins were generated, and Hydrological Response Units/HRU was obtained by overlaying data such as land use, slope, and soil. Hydrological processes were simulated based upon water balance using meteorological data within the basin and HRU. The model results were used for calibration via SWAT-CUP using the E13A031 station. The modeled results to simulate basin processes have been obtained as sufficient. The different time series characteristics (magnitude, frequency, duration, and timing) belonging to low and high flow characteristics have been estimated and compared with observed data. Even though there is good coherence between observed and modeled low/high flow metrics, there are many uncertainty sources caused to over and under estimation on some metrics. On the other hand, metrics to all sub-basins are calculated. According to the result, the Kocanaz basin reflects high differences in low/high flows metric compared to other basins. In this context, hydrological models offer opportunities for planning and watershed management to understand climate change and land-use change.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Akbaş, A., Özdemir, H. (2022). Tüm Modeller Yanlıştır, Ancak Bazıları Faydalıdır: Akım Gözlem İstasyonu Bulunmayan Havzalarda Düşük (Kurak) ve Yüksek (Taşkın) Akım Davranışlarının Belirlenmesi. Coğrafya Dergisi, Sayı: 45, 33–46. https://doi.org/10.26650/JGEOG2022-1075304

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (75)

  1. Abbaspour, K. C. (2013). SWAT-CUP 2012. SWAT Calibration and Uncertainty Program-A User Manual. google scholar
  2. Abbaspour, K. C., Rouholahnejad, E., Vaghefi,, Srinivasan, R., Yang, H., & Kl0ve, B. (2015). A continental-scale hydrology and water quality model for Europe: Calibration and uncertainty of a highresolution large-scale SWAT model. Journal of Hydrology, 524, 733-752. google scholar
  3. Addor, N., Nearing, G., Prieto, C., Newman, A. J., Le Vine, N., & Clark, M. P. (2018). A ranking of hydrological signatures based on their predictability in space. Water Resources Research, 54(11), 8792-8812. google scholar
  4. Arnold JG, Srinivasan R, Muttiah RS, Williams JR. 1998. Large area hydrologic modelling and assessment- Part I: model development. Journal of American Water Resources Association 34(1), 73-89. google scholar
  5. Arnold, J. G., Moriasi, D. N., Gassman, P. W., Abbaspour, K. C., White, M. J., Srinivasan, R.,. & Kannan, N. (2012). SWAT: Model use, calibration, and validation. Transactions of the ASABE, 55(4), 1491-1508. google scholar
  6. Akbas, A., Freer, J., Ozdemir, H., Bates, P. D., & Turp, M. T. (2020). What about reservoirs? Questioning anthropogenic and climatic interferences on water availability. Hydrological Processes, 34(26), 5441-5455. google scholar
  7. Amjad, M., Yilmaz, M. T., Yucel, I., & Yilmaz, K. K. (2020). Performance evaluation of satellite-and model-based precipitation products over varying climate and complex topography. Journal of Hydrology, 584, 124707. google scholar
  8. Beven, K. J. (2011). Rainfall-runoff modelling: the primer. John Wiley & Sons. google scholar
  9. Beven, K. J., & Kirkby, M. J. (1979). A physically based, variable contributing area model of basin hydrology/Un modèle à base physique de zone d’appel variable de l’hydrologie du bassin versant. Hydrological Sciences Journal, 24(1), 43-69. google scholar
  10. Beven, K., & Freer, J. (2001). Equifinality, data assimilation, and uncertainty estimation in mechanistic modelling of complex environmental systems using the GLUE methodology. Journal of hydrology, 249(1-4), 11-29. google scholar
  11. Beven, K., Smith, P. J., & Wood, A. (2011). On the colour and spin of epistemic error (and what we might do about it). Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 15(10), 3123-3133. google scholar
  12. Blöschl, G., & Sivapalan, M. (1995). Scale issues in hydrological modelling: a review. Hydrological processes, 9(3-4), 251-290. google scholar
  13. Bond, N. (2021) Package “hydrostats”, The Comprehensive R Archive Network (CRAN), mevut olduğu yer: https://CRAN.R-project.org/ package=hydrostats, (Erişim tarihi, 12 Aralık 2021). google scholar
  14. Box, G. E. (1979). Robustness in the strategy of scientific model building. In Robustness in statistics (pp. 201-236). Academic Press. google scholar
  15. Brown, M. E., Escobar, V., Moran, S., Entekhabi, D., O’Neill, P. E., Njoku, E. G.,. & Entin, J. K. (2013). NASA’s soil moisture active passive (SMAP) mission and opportunities for applications users. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 94(8), 1125-1128. google scholar
  16. Bucak, T., Trolle, D., Andersen, H. E., Thodsen, H., Erdoğan, Ş., Levi, E. E.,. & Beklioğlu, M. (2017). Future water availability in the largest freshwater Mediterranean lake is at great risk as evidenced from simulations with the SWAT model. Science of the Total Environment, 581, 413-425. google scholar
  17. Clark, M. P., Vogel, R. M., Lamontagne, J. R., Mizukami, N., Knoben, W. J., Tang, G.,. & Papalexiou, S. M. (2021). The abuse of popular performance metrics in hydrologic modeling. Water Resources Research, 57(9), e2020WR029001. google scholar
  18. Coxon, G., Freer, J., Westerberg, I. K., Wagener, T., Woods, R., & Smith, P. J. (2015). A novel framework for discharge uncertainty quantification applied to 500 UK gauging stations. Water resources research, 51(7), 5531-5546. google scholar
  19. Entekhabi, D., Njoku, E. G., O’Neill, P. E., Kellogg, K. H., Crow, W. T., Edelstein, W. N.,. & Van Zyl, J. (2010). The soil moisture active passive (SMAP) mission. Proceedings of the IEEE, 98(5), 704-716. google scholar
  20. Entekhabi, D., Yueh, S., O’Neill, P. E., Kellogg, K. H., Allen, A., Bindlish, R.,. & West, R. (2014a). SMAP handbook-soil moisture active passive: Mapping soil moisture and freeze/thaw from space. google scholar
  21. Entekhabi, D., Yueh, S., & De Lannoy, G. (2014b). SMAP handbook. google scholar
  22. Ertürk, A., Ekdal, A., Gürel, M., Karakaya, N., Guzel, C., & Gönenç, E. (2014). Evaluating the impact of climate change on groundwater resources in a small Mediterranean watershed. Science of the Total Environment, 499, 437-447. google scholar
  23. Fuka, D. R., C.A. MacAllister, A. T. Degaetano, and Z.M. Easton. (2013). Using the Climate Forecast System Reanalysis dataset to improve weather input data for watershed models. Hydrol. Proc. DOI: 10.1002/hyp.10073. google scholar
  24. Görüm, T., & Fidan, S. (2021). Spatiotemporal variations of fatal landslides in Turkey. Landslides, 18(5), 1691-1705. google scholar
  25. Grusson, Y., Anctil, F., Sauvage, S., & Sánchez Pérez, J. M. (2017). Testing the SWAT model with gridded weather data of different spatial resolutions. Water, 9(1), 54. google scholar
  26. Gupta, H. V., Sorooshian, S., Yapo, P. O. (1999). Status of automatic calibration for hydrologic models: Comparison with multilevel expert calibration. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 4(2), 135143. google scholar
  27. Hersbach, H., Bell, B., Berrisford, P., Hirahara, S., Horányi, A., Muñoz-Sabater, J.,. & Thépaut, J. N. (2020). The ERA5 global reanalysis. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 146(730), 1999-2049. google scholar
  28. Horton, P., Schaefli, B., & Kauzlaric, M. (2021). Why do we have so many different hydrological models? A review based on the case of Switzerland. google scholar
  29. Hsu, K. L., Gao, X., Sorooshian, S., & Gupta, H. V. (1997). Precipitation estimation from remotely sensed information using artificial neural networks. Journal of Applied Meteorology, 36(9), 1176-1190. google scholar
  30. Hrachowitz, M., Savenije, H. H. G., Blöschl, G., McDonnell, J. J., Sivapalan, M., Pomeroy, J. W.,. & Cudennec, C. (2013). A decade of Predictions in Ungauged Basins (PUB)—a review. Hydrological sciences journal, 58(6), 1198-1255. google scholar
  31. Huffman, G. J., Bolvin, D. T., Nelkin, E. J., Wolff, D. B., Adler, R. F., Gu, G.,. & Stocker, E. F. (2007). The TRMM Multisatellite Precipitation Analysis (TMPA): Quasi-global, multiyear, combinedsensor precipitation estimates at fine scales. Journal of hydrometeorology, 8(1), 38-55. google scholar
  32. Huffman, G. J., & Bolvin, D. T. (2018). TRMM and other data precipitation data set documentation. NASA, Greenbelt, USA, 28(2.3), 1. google scholar
  33. Huffman, G. J., E. F. Stocker, D.T. Bolvin, E. J. Nelkin, Jackson Tan (2019), GPM IMERG Final Precipitation L3 1 day 0.1 degree x 0.1 degree V06, Edited by Andrey Savtchenko, Greenbelt, MD, Goddard Earth Sciences Data and Information Services Center (GES DISC), Accessed: [Accessed 15 August 2021], 10.5067/ GPM/IMERGDF/DAY/06 google scholar
  34. Karaca, M., Deniz, A., & Tayanç, M. (2000). Cyclone track variability over Turkey in association with regional climate. International Journal of Climatology: A Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 20(10), 1225-1236. google scholar
  35. Kidd, C., Becker, A., Huffman, G. J., Muller, C. L., Joe, P., Skofronick-Jackson, G., & Kirschbaum, D. B. (2017). So, how much of the Earth’s surface is covered by rain gauges?. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 98(1), 69-78. google scholar
  36. Krause, P., Boyle, D. P., Base, F (2005). Comparison of different efficiency criteria for hydrological model assessment. Advances in geosciences, 5, 89-97. google scholar
  37. Li, B., Rodell, M., Kumar, S., Beaudoing, H. K., Getirana, A., Zaitchik, B. F.,. & Bettadpur, S. (2019). Global GRACE data assimilation for groundwater and drought monitoring: Advances and challenges. Water Resources Research, 55(9), 7564-7586. google scholar
  38. Liu, Y., & Gupta, H. V. (2007). Uncertainty in hydrologic modeling: Toward an integrated data assimilation framework. Water resources research, 43(7). google scholar
  39. Martens, B., Miralles, D. G., Lievens, H., Van Der Schalie, R., De Jeu, R. A., Fernandez-Prieto, D.,. & Verhoest, N. E. (2017). GLEAM v3: Satellite-based land evaporation and root-zone soil moisture. Geoscientific Model Development, 10(5), 1903-1925. google scholar
  40. Melsen, L. A., Teuling, A. J., Torfs, P. J., Zappa, M., Mizukami, N., Mendoza, P. A.,. & Uijlenhoet, R. (2019). Subjective modeling decisions can significantly impact the simulation of flood and drought events. Journal of Hydrology, 568, 1093-1104. google scholar
  41. Monteith, J. L. (1965). Evaporation and environment. In Symposia of the society for experimental biology (Vol. 19, pp. 205-234). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (CUP). google scholar
  42. Moriasi, D. N., Arnold, J. G., Van Liew, M. W., Bingner, R. L., Harmel, R. D., & Veith, T. L. (2007). Model evaluation guidelines for systematic quantification of accuracy in watershed simulations. Transactions of the ASABE, 50(3), 885-900. google scholar
  43. Nash, J.E. Sutcliffe, J.V. (1970). River flow forecasting through conceptual models. Part I. A discussion of principles. Journal of Hydrology, 10, 282-290. doi:10.1016/0022-1694(70)90255-6 google scholar
  44. Neitsch, S. L., Arnold, J. G., Kiniry, J. R., & Williams, J. R. (2011). Soil and water assessment tool theoretical documentation version 2009. Texas Water Resources Institute. google scholar
  45. Nguyen, P., Shearer, E. J., Tran, H., Ombadi, M., Hayatbini, N., Palacios, T.,. & Sorooshian, S. (2019). The CHRS Data Portal, an easily accessible public repository for PERSIANN global satellite precipitation data. Scientific data, 6(1), 1-10. google scholar
  46. Özdemir, H. (2007). SCS CN Yağış-akış modelinin CBS ve uzaktan algılama yöntemleriyle uygulanması: Havran Çayı Havzası örneği (Balıkesir). Coğrafi Bilimler Dergisi, 5(2), 1-12. google scholar
  47. Özdemir, H. (2011). Havza morfometrisi ve taşkınlar. Fiziki Coğrafya Araştırmaları, 457-474. google scholar
  48. Ozdemir, H., Sampson, C. C., de Almeida, G. A., & Bates, P. D. (2013). Evaluating scale and roughness effects in urban flood modelling using terrestrial LIDAR data. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 17(10), 4015-4030. google scholar
  49. Ozdemir, H., & Elbaşı, E. (2015). Benchmarking land use change impacts on direct runoff in ungauged urban watersheds. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C, 79, 100-107. google scholar
  50. Peel, M. C., & McMahon, T. A. (2020). Historical development of rainfallrunoff modeling. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water, 7(5), e1471. google scholar
  51. R Core Team. (2019). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, 635 Austria. Retrieved from http://www.r-project.org/index.html google scholar
  52. Sidle, R. C. (2021). Strategies for smarter catchment hydrology models: incorporating scaling and better process representation. Geoscience Letters, 8(1), 1-14. google scholar
  53. SCS, 1956, 1964, 1971, 1985, 1993. Hydrology, National Engineering Handbook, Supplement A, Section 4, Chapter 10. Soil Conservation Service, USDA, Washington, DC. google scholar
  54. Sk0ien, J. O., Bloschl, G., & Western, A. W. (2003). Characteristic space scales and timescales in hydrology. Water Resources Research, 39(10). google scholar
  55. Srinivasulu, S., & Jain, A. (2006). A comparative analysis of training methods for artificial neural network rainfall-runoff models. Applied Soft Computing, 6(3), 295-306. google scholar
  56. Strauch, M., Bernhofer, C., Koide, S., Volk, M., Lorz, C., & Makeschin, F. (2012). Using precipitation data ensemble for uncertainty analysis in SWAT streamflow simulation. Journal of Hydrology, 414, 413424. google scholar
  57. Sunde, M. G., He, H. S., Hubbart, J. A., & Urban, M. A. (2017). Integrating downscaled CMIP5 data with a physically based hydrologic model to estimate potential climate change impacts on streamflow processes in a mixed-use watershed. Hydrological Processes, 31(9), 1790-1803. google scholar
  58. Tatli, H., Nüzhet Dalfes, H., & Sibel Menteş, Ş. (2004). A statistical downscaling method for monthly total precipitation over Turkey. International Journal of Climatology: A Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 24(2), 161-180. google scholar
  59. Türkeş, M. (1996). Spatial and temporal analysis of annual rainfall variations in Turkey. International Journal of Climatology: A Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 16(9), 1057-1076. google scholar
  60. Tapley, B. D., Bettadpur, S., Ries, J. C., Thompson, P. F., & Watkins, M. M. (2004). GRACE measurements of mass variability in the Earth system. Science, 305(5683), 503-505. google scholar
  61. Turoglu, H., Ozdemir, H. (2005). Bartın’da Sel ve Taşkınlar: Sebepler, Etkiler, Önleme ve Zarar Azaltma Önerileri. Çantay Kitabevi. google scholar
  62. Turoğlu, H. (2007). Flood and flash floods analysis for Bartın River Basin. In International River Basin Management Congress, Proceeding (pp. 0-14). google scholar
  63. Arnold, J. G., Moriasi, D. N., Gassman, P. W., Abbaspour, K. C., White, M. J., Srinivasan, R.,. & Kannan, N. (2012). SWAT: Model use, calibration, and validation. Transactions of the ASABE, 55(4), 1491-1508. google scholar
  64. Brown, M. E., Escobar, V., Moran, S., Entekhabi, D., O’Neill, P. E., Njoku, E. G.,. & Entin, J. K. (2013). NASA’s soil moisture active passive (SMAP) mission and opportunities for applications users. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 94(8), 1125-1128. google scholar
  65. Bucak, T., Trolle, D., Andersen, H. E., Thodsen, H., Erdoğan, Ş., Levi, E. E.,. & Beklioğlu, M. (2017). Future water availability in the largest freshwater Mediterranean lake is at great risk as evidenced from simulations with the SWAT model. Science of the Total Environment, 581, 413-425. google scholar
  66. Clark, M. P., Vogel, R. M., Lamontagne, J. R., Mizukami, N., Knoben, W. J., Tang, G.,. & Papalexiou, S. M. (2021). The abuse of popular performance metrics in hydrologic modeling. Water Resources Research, 57(9), e2020WR029001. google scholar
  67. Entekhabi, D., Njoku, E. G., O’Neill, P. E., Kellogg, K. H., Crow, W. T., Edelstein, W. N.,. & Van Zyl, J. (2010). The soil moisture active passive (SMAP) mission. Proceedings of the IEEE, 98(5), 704-716. google scholar
  68. Entekhabi, D., Yueh, S., O’Neill, P. E., Kellogg, K. H., Allen, A., Bindlish, R.,. & West, R. (2014a). SMAP handbook-soil moisture active passive: Mapping soil moisture and freeze/thaw from space. google scholar
  69. Hersbach, H., Bell, B., Berrisford, P., Hirahara, S., Horányi, A., Muñoz-Sabater, J.,. & Thépaut, J. N. (2020). The ERA5 global reanalysis. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 146(730), 1999-2049. google scholar
  70. Hrachowitz, M., Savenije, H. H. G., Blöschl, G., McDonnell, J. J., Sivapalan, M., Pomeroy, J. W.,. & Cudennec, C. (2013). A decade of Predictions in Ungauged Basins (PUB)—a review. Hydrological sciences journal, 58(6), 1198-1255. google scholar
  71. Huffman, G. J., Bolvin, D. T., Nelkin, E. J., Wolff, D. B., Adler, R. F., Gu, G.,. & Stocker, E. F. (2007). The TRMM Multisatellite Precipitation Analysis (TMPA): Quasi-global, multiyear, combinedsensor precipitation estimates at fine scales. Journal of hydrometeorology, 8(1), 38-55. google scholar
  72. Li, B., Rodell, M., Kumar, S., Beaudoing, H. K., Getirana, A., Zaitchik, B. F.,. & Bettadpur, S. (2019). Global GRACE data assimilation for groundwater and drought monitoring: Advances and challenges. Water Resources Research, 55(9), 7564-7586. google scholar
  73. Martens, B., Miralles, D. G., Lievens, H., Van Der Schalie, R., De Jeu, R. A., Fernandez-Prieto, D.,. & Verhoest, N. E. (2017). GLEAM v3: Satellite-based land evaporation and root-zone soil moisture. Geoscientific Model Development, 10(5), 1903-1925. google scholar
  74. Melsen, L. A., Teuling, A. J., Torfs, P. J., Zappa, M., Mizukami, N., Mendoza, P. A.,. & Uijlenhoet, R. (2019). Subjective modeling decisions can significantly impact the simulation of flood and drought events. Journal of Hydrology, 568, 1093-1104. google scholar
  75. Nguyen, P., Shearer, E. J., Tran, H., Ombadi, M., Hayatbini, N., Palacios, T.,. & Sorooshian, S. (2019). The CHRS Data Portal, an easily accessible public repository for PERSIANN global satellite precipitation data. Scientific data, 6(1), 1-10. google scholar