An Informal Survey of Watershed Model Users: Preferences, Applications, and Rationales
An Informal Survey of Watershed Model Users: Preferences, Applications, and Rationales
复制标题
流域模型用户的非正式调查：偏好、应用和基本原理
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2009
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
S. Fleming
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
S. Fleming
从大量的流域模型中进行选择可能具有挑战性，了解水资源科学和工程专业人士如何做出这些选择是有趣且具有潜在价值的。简介 如果您向 20 位水文学家询问他们对流域模型的看法，您可能会收到 20 个不同的答案。这似乎是分水岭建模界的一个众所周知的特征，但也许并没有被广泛理解，因为这种情况在某种程度上是该学科所特有的。尽管知识多样性是健康的，并且确实是科学进步所必需的，但大多数其他科学和工程领域的建模哲学和工具似乎更加统一和连贯。例如，考虑密切相关的地下水建模领域。对于如何构建地下水模型已达成共识，例如一致认为模型通常应求解控制微分方程，以及对该方程的内容达成一致。地下水建模包之间的差异在于重要但严格来说是次要的问题，例如所采用的具体数值求解方法（例如，解析法、有限差分法、有限元法）、适应的其他物理复杂性（例如湿地）或预处理和后处理实用程序或图形用户界面（GUI）。相反，流域模型之间的基本建模概念和方法可能有很大不同（例如，IHACRES 与 SHETRAN）。此外，面向过程的分水岭建模包已显着增加，每个包都代表了解决问题的不同方法。对于如何模拟气象强迫到水流的转变缺乏一致观点的原因似乎很简单。这样的工具不是一个过程的数学计算表示，而是许多物理和生物过程的表示；大多数这些单独的组成过程本身就很难建模和/或受数据约束；不同地区、甚至一个流域之间的重要运作流程也各不相同。除此之外，流域水文学涵盖了广泛的目标，从对我们周围世界本质的基础科学探究到非常实用、有针对性的应用问题。每个目标都有自己的一套要求：例如，森林水文学研究模型可以支持高细节而不是快速运行时间，而一般来说，可操作的河流预测模型则不能。所有这些考虑因素的最终结果是有大量可用模型可供选择（例如，Singh 和 Woolhiser 2002 年的表 1；另请参见 Beckers 等人，2009a-c）。
Making a selection from a smorgasbord of watershed models can be challenging, and it is interesting and potentially valuable to see how water resource science and engineering professionals make these choices. Introduction If you ask 20 hydrologists for their opinions on watershed models, you are likely to receive 20 different answers. This seems a well-known trait of the watershed modelling community, but it is perhaps not so widely understood that the situation is somewhat unique to the discipline. Though intellectual diversity is healthy and indeed needed for science to progress, most other fields of science and engineering seem a little more unified and coherent in their modelling philosophies and tools. Consider the closely allied field of groundwater modelling, for instance. There is a consensus on how groundwater models should be constructed, such as agreement that models should in general solve a governing differential equation, and agreement on what that equation is. Differences between groundwater modelling packages lie instead with important, but strictly secondary, issues such as the specific numerical solution methods adopted (e.g., analytical vs. finite-difference vs. finite-element), additional physical complications accommodated (e.g., wetlands), or preand post-processing utilities or graphical user interfaces (GUIs). In contrast, fundamental modelling concepts and methods may be quite different between watershed models (e.g., IHACRES vs. SHETRAN). Further, there has been a remarkable proliferation of process-oriented watershed modelling packages, each representing a different tack on the problem. The reason for this lack of a consistent view on how to model the transformation of meteorological forcing to streamflow seems straightforward. Such a tool is not a mathematicalcomputational representation of a process, but a representation of very many processes, both physical and biological; most of those individual constituent processes are themselves inherently difficult to model and/or constrain by data; and the operative, important processes vary from one region, and even one catchment, to the next. On top of this, watershed hydrology spans a wide range of goals, from fundamental scientific enquiry into the nature of the world around us to very practical, focused, applied questions. Each goal has its own set of requirements: a forest hydrology research model can afford to favour high detail over fast run times, for instance, whereas in general an operational river forecast model cannot. The net effect of all these considerations is a plethora of available models to choose from (e.g., Table 1 of Singh and Woolhiser 2002; see also Beckers et al. 2009a–c).