Investigating Alternative Climate Data Sources for Hydrological Simulations in the Upstream of the Amu Darya River

• Main Authors: Ayetiguli Sidike, Xi Chen, Tie Liu, Khaydar Durdiev, Yue Huang
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: MDPI AG 2016-10-01
• Series: Water
• Subjects: climate data sources; different combinations of multisource data; river flow simulation; SWAT model
• Online Access: http://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/8/10/441

The main objective of this study is to investigate alternative climate data sources for long-term hydrological modeling. To accomplish this goal, one weather station data set (WSD) and three grid-based data sets including three types of precipitation data and two types of temperature data were selected according to their spatial and temporal details. An accuracy assessment of the grid-based data sets was performed using WSD. Then, the performances of corrected data combination and non-corrected grid-based precipitation and temperature data combinations from multiple sources on simulating river flow in the upstream portion of the Amu Darya River Basin (ADRB) were analyzed using a Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) model. The results of the accuracy assessments indicated that all the grid-based data sets underestimated precipitation. The Asian Precipitation Highly Resolved Observational Data Integration Towards the Evaluation of Water Resources (APHRODITE) precipitation data provided the highest accuracy (correlation coefficients (CF) > 0.89, root mean square error (RMSE) < 41.6 mm), followed by the CRUNCEP reanalysis data (a combination of the CRU TS.3.2 data and the National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) reanalysis data) (CF > 0.5, RMSE < 58.1 mm) and Princeton’s Global Meteorological Forcing Dataset (PGMFD) precipitation data (CF > 0.46, RMSE < 62.8 mm). The PGMFD temperature data exhibited a higher accuracy (CF > 0.98, RMSE < 7.1 °C) than the CRUNCEP temperature data (CF > 0.97, RMSE < 4.9 °C). In terms of the simulation performance, the corrected APHRODITE precipitation and PGMFD temperature data provided the best performance. The CF and Nash-Sutcliffe (NSE) coefficients in the calibration and validation periods were 0.96 and 0.92 and 0.93 and 0.83, respectively. In addition, the combinations of PGMFD temperature data and APHRODITE, PGMFD and CRUNCEP precipitation data produced good results, with NSE ≥ 0.70 and CF ≥ 0.89. The combination of CRUNCEP temperature data and APHRODITE precipitation produced a satisfactory result, with NSE = 0.58 and CF = 0.82. The combinations of CRUNCEP temperature data and PGMFD and CRUNCEP precipitation data produced poor results.