Eight different patch configurations were investigated to analyze the effect of patch characterization/formation in streamflow simulation, using the Regional Hydro-Ecologic Simulation Systems (RHESSys) model. It is in...Eight different patch configurations were investigated to analyze the effect of patch characterization/formation in streamflow simulation, using the Regional Hydro-Ecologic Simulation Systems (RHESSys) model. It is investigated for eight different patch configurations of a subcatchment of the Turkey Lakes Watershed, Ontario. The model’s hydrological parameters are calibrated for each of these patch configurations and the performance of the simulations is evaluated. Results indicate that both the nature of the flow simulation and the calibrated parameter values are sensitive to patch configuration. The best simulation results were obtained for the patch configuration with the highest spatial variation of climate, stream network and hillslope conditions across the subcatchment. Different patch configurations also lead to markedly different calibrations of the model’s hydrological parameters (54.26 < k < 119.13;and 1.02 < m < 2.28), which has implications for the physical interpretation and transferability of the calibrated parameter values.展开更多
文摘Eight different patch configurations were investigated to analyze the effect of patch characterization/formation in streamflow simulation, using the Regional Hydro-Ecologic Simulation Systems (RHESSys) model. It is investigated for eight different patch configurations of a subcatchment of the Turkey Lakes Watershed, Ontario. The model’s hydrological parameters are calibrated for each of these patch configurations and the performance of the simulations is evaluated. Results indicate that both the nature of the flow simulation and the calibrated parameter values are sensitive to patch configuration. The best simulation results were obtained for the patch configuration with the highest spatial variation of climate, stream network and hillslope conditions across the subcatchment. Different patch configurations also lead to markedly different calibrations of the model’s hydrological parameters (54.26 < k < 119.13;and 1.02 < m < 2.28), which has implications for the physical interpretation and transferability of the calibrated parameter values.
