Can the two-parameter recursive digital filter baseflow separation method really be calibrated by the conductivity mass balance method?
-
Published:2021-04-06
Issue:4
Volume:25
Page:1747-1760
-
ISSN:1607-7938
-
Container-title:Hydrology and Earth System Sciences
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.
Author:
Yang WeifeiORCID, Xiao Changlai, Zhang Zhihao, Liang Xiujuan
Abstract
Abstract. The two-parameter recursive digital filter method
(Eckhardt) and the conductivity mass balance (CMB) method are two
widely used baseflow separation methods favored by hydrologists. Some
divergences in the application of these two methods have emerged in recent
years. Some scholars believe that deviation of baseflow separation results
of the two methods is due to uncertainty of the parameters of the Eckhardt
method and that the Eckhardt method should be corrected by reference to the
CMB method. However, other scholars attribute the deviation to the fact that
they contain different transient water components. This study aimed to
resolve this disagreement by analyzing the effectiveness of the CMB method
for correcting the Eckhardt method through application of the methods to 26
basins in the United States by comparison of the biases between the
generated daily baseflow series. The results showed that the approach of
calibrating the Eckhardt method against the CMB method provides a “false”
calibration of total baseflow by offsetting the inherent biases in the
baseflow sequences generated by the two methods. The baseflow sequence
generated by the Eckhardt method usually includes slow interflow and bank
storage return flow, whereas that of the CMB method usually includes
high-conductivity water flushed from swamps and depressions by rainfall, but
not low-conductivity interflow and bank storage return flow. This difference
results in obvious peak misalignment and periodic deviation between the
baseflow sequences obtained by the two methods, thereby preventing
calibration. However, multi-component separation of streamflow can be
achieved through comparison. Future research should recognize the deviations
between the separation results obtained by the different methods, identify
the reasons for these differences, and explore the hydrological information
contained therein.
Funder
National Natural Science Foundation of China
Publisher
Copernicus GmbH
Subject
General Earth and Planetary Sciences,General Engineering,General Environmental Science
Reference66 articles.
1. Aubert, A. H., Gascuel-Odoux, C., and Merot, P.: Annual hysteresis of water
quality: A method to analyse the effect of intra- and inter-annual climatic
conditions, J. Hydrol., 478, 29–39, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.11.027,
2013. 2. Bishop, K., Seibert, J., Köhler, S., and Laudon, H.: Resolving the
Double Paradox of rapidly mobilized old water with highly variable responses
in runoff chemistry, Hydrol. Process., 18, 185–189, https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.5209,
2004. 3. Blumstock, M., Tetzlaff, D., Malcolm, I. A., Nuetzmann, G., and Soulsby, C.:
Baseflow dynamics: Multi-tracer surveys to assess variable groundwater
contributions to montane streams under low flows, J. Hydrol., 527,
1021–1033, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2015.05.019, 2015. 4. Boughton, W. C.: A hydrograph based model for estimating the water yield of
ungauged catchments, Inst. Engs. Aust., Nat. Conf. Publ., 93, 317–324,
1993. 5. Brutsaert, W. and Nieber, J. L.: Regionalized drought flow hydrographs from
a mature glaciated plateau, Water Resour. Res., 13, 637–643, https://doi.org/10.1029/WR013i003p00637, 1977.
Cited by
16 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
|
|