hype model simulations for non- stationary conditions in european medium sized catchments göran...
TRANSCRIPT
HYPE model simulations for non-stationary conditions in European medium sized catchments
Göran Lindström & Chantal Donnelly, SMHI, SwedenIAHS, 2013-07-23, Göteborg, Sweden.Hw15 - Testing simulation and forecasting models in non-stationary conditions
After the Gudrun stormJanuary 2005
Photo: H.Alexandesson
Outline
Objectives Simulate non-stationary conditions, for this workshop. Evaluate effects of the Gudrun storm in 2005.
Modeled basins Garonne (France, increase in temperature, decrease in discharge) Durance (France, increase in temperature, decrease of glacier) Lissbro (Sweden, forest loss due to Gudrun storm)
HYPE modelHydrological Predictions for the Environment
Simulates daily fluxes and turn-over of water, Nitrogen & Phosphorus Integrated soil- and groundwater, substances follow water flow paths Developed for large-scale applications Routing in rivers & lakes (incl. regulation) Parameters are linked to soil type or land-use, and calibrated Each combination of soil type and land-use is modeled separately First version was developed in 2005-2007, and continuously developed Potential evaporation by air temperature with seasonally varying factor
Soil types Land use SLC+
Soil/Land Use classes (SLC)Most parameters coupled to soil or land-use
HYPE in the world
Durance and Garonne –
- 35000 subbasins
- Median size 215 km2
- Used for hindcasting, operational forecasting and future climate predictions, Q, Nitrogen and Phosphorous
Taken from the E-HYPE pan-European application of the HYPE model
For Durance and Garonne:• Local model taken from E-HYPE (subbasin delineation, landuse, soil-type,
lakes, glaciers, irrigation etc)• Used the local forcing data (but with height adjustment to height of each
subbasin in catchment for temperature)• Calibrated to given Q data by adjusting ’super-parameters’ (also Precip
correction where required)
Trends over data period:
Observed Trends:
Simulated vs Observed Trends:
Modeled decrease slightly too weak
Durance Catchment area: 2170 km²
Pmean Tmean Qmean NSE RE (%)
1971-1980 1608 2.8 53 0.67 0
1998 -2007 1150 4.1 45 0.55 +2
Garonne Catchment area: 9980 km²
HYPE underestimated the decrease in discharge
Temperature increase not the only cause of decreasing discharge? Temperature increased by ~1.2 ºC (whole period) Precipitation decreased by ~8% (whole period) Data uncertainties? Regulation, irrigation?
Pmean Tmean Qmean NSE RE (%)
1971-1980 1232 8.5 222.6 0.78 -1
1998-2007 1086 10.0 155.5 0.50 +12
Does glacial melt in the Durance catchment explain non-stationarity?
Glacier = 8 % of area Glacier = 1 % of area
S-HYPE model for Sweden
For support to implementation of EU Water Framework Directive, forecasting etc.
~ 35000 subbasins, ~15km2 subbasin resolution
Cal/Eval at 400 stations Interpolation
Runoff and discharge
Gudrun storm, January 2005 About 70 M m3 of trees were blown down. 18 people died (in Sweden) Three worst storms in Sweden: 1902, 1969 and 2005 In a region affected by a summer flood in 2004 Worries about increased flood risk after loss of forest Also known as Erwin storm
Gudrun storm January 2005 In the worst hit areas ~8 % of trees were blown down.
Max wind speed (m/s) Loss of forest (m3/ha)
Lissbro
Lissbro97 km2, 81% forested, 1 % lakes
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 20040
4
8
12
2004summer flood
The 10 years before Gudrun
Previous HBV study of clearfellingBrandt et al. (1988), small-scale experiments, central Sweden
Discharge: +165-200 mm/year
Lissbro, Reference (no change in model)4 key parameters adjusted to Lissbro data
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 20100
2
4
6
8
10
12 Com
RecQ (m3/s)
P (mm)
020406080
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
-400-2000200400
AD (mm)
CalibrationBefore storm
"Validation"After storm
NSE=0.86VE=+1%
NSE=0.89VE=-5%
Lissbro, Simulated clearfelling8% of the forest converted to clearfelling
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 20100
2
4
6
8
10
12 Com
RecQ (m3/s)
P (mm)
020406080
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
-400-2000200400
AD (mm)
CalibrationBefore storm
"Validation"After storm
NSE=0.86VE=+1%
NSE=0.89VE=-3%
Change in SLC classes
Lissbro, Decreased PotEvapForest PET ~15% higher than open areas (8% forest loss)
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 20100
2
4
6
8
10
12 Com
RecQ (m3/s)
P (mm)
020406080
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
-400-2000200400
AD (mm)
CalibrationBefore storm
"Validation"After storm
NSE=0.86VE=+1%
NSE=0.89VE=-4%
Change in PET parameter
Conclusions Trends in discharge were fairly well captured by the HYPE model for the two
French basins (but modeled discharge decrease was too weak in Garonne). Glacier development had negligible effect in Durance. The effects of the Gudrun storm on discharge in Lissbro were very small (within
the uncertainty in the model calibration period).