Abstract
Groundwater recharge plays an important role in groundwater resource sustainability. Many approaches are available for quantifying recharge, including the use of numerical hydrological models. Various studies have assessed the efficacy of integrating recharge information from rainfall-runoff models into groundwater models. These studies, however, have been mostly restricted to a single hydrological model and were not able to evaluate the impact on simulating groundwater conditions caused by different recharge inputs. Furthermore, hydrological recharge models used in these studies are often fully distributed and physically based, resulted in high complexity in model structure, and, hence, posed equifinality challenges in calibration. On the other hand, these models may be more reliable for impact studies, which often involve extrapolation beyond the range of available calibration datasets. This paper proposes a modelling approach that replaces the groundwater reservoir in conceptual rainfall-runoff models by a more detailed and more physically based groundwater component. The approach enables assessment of the impact on groundwater conditions by different recharge models and to improve the model performance on simulating baseflow. The methodology starts with three well-calibrated lumped conceptual models, which were then disaggregated into spatially distributed codes to provide spatial–temporal information on groundwater recharge. The approach was tested for three conceptual models and applied to a catchment in Belgium. Model results were found to be consistent with respect to observations when evaluated for seasonal variations of groundwater heads and for cumulative groundwater discharge. However, evaluation of river hydrograph shapes and water-table variations revealed distinct results produced by the different recharge models.
Résumé
La recharge des eaux souterraines joue un rôle important dans la gestion durable des ressources en eaux souterraines. Plusieurs approches sont disponibles pour quantifier la recharge, y compris l’utilisation de modèles numériques hydrologiques. Diverses études ont évalué l’efficacité de l’intégration de l’information relative à la recharge à partir de modèles pluies-ruissellement dans des modèles hydrogéologiques. Ces études, cependant, sont restreintes la plupart du temps à un seul modèle hydrologique et n’étaient pas en mesure d’évaluer l’impact sur les conditions de simulation des eaux souterraines dues à différents apports de recharge. En outre, les modèles hydrologiques de recharge utilisés dans ces études sont souvent complétement distribués et à base physique; cela a entrainé par conséquence une grande complexité dans la structure du modèle, et, donc, pose des défis d’équifinalité dans la calibration. D’autre part, ces modèles peuvent être plus fiables pour les études d’impact, ce qui implique une extrapolation au-delà des données disponibles pour le calage. Cet article propose une approche de modélisation qui replace le réservoir aquifère dans des modèles conceptuels pluie-ruissellement par une composante eaux souterraines plus détaillée et à base physique. Cette approche permet une évaluation de l’impact sur les conditions des eaux souterraines à partir de différents modèles de recharge et d’améliorer la performance du modèle sur la simulation du débit de base. La méthodologie débute avec trois modèles conceptuels bien calibrés, qui sont ensuite désagrégés en codes distribués dans l’espace pour fournir des informations spatio-temporelles sur la recharges des eaux souterraines. L’approche a été testée pour trois modèles conceptuels et appliquée à un bassin versant en Belgique. Les résultats du modèle se sont avérés compatibles avec les observations lorsqu’elles ont été évaluées pour des variations saisonnières des charges hydrauliques et pour le débit cumulé des eaux souterraines. Cependant, l’évaluation des formes des hydrogrammes de rivière et des variations du niveau d’eaux souterraines a révélé des résultats distincts issus des différents modèles de recharge.
Resumen
La recarga de aguas subterráneas desempeña un papel importante en la sostenibilidad de los recursos de aguas subterráneas. Existen muchos enfoques disponibles para cuantificar la recarga, incluyendo el uso de modelos hidrológicos numéricos. Varios estudios han evaluado la eficacia de integrar la información de recarga de los modelos de lluvia-escorrentía en los modelos de aguas subterráneas. Estos estudios, sin embargo, se han restringido en su mayoría a un modelo hidrológico único y no han podido evaluar el impacto en la simulación de las condiciones de las aguas subterráneas causadas por las diferentes entradas de recarga. Además, los modelos de recarga hidrológica utilizados en estos estudios a menudo están totalmente distribuidos y basados físicamente, lo que resulta en una estructura de modelos de alta complejidad y, por lo tanto, plantea retos de equifinalidad en la calibración. Por otra parte, estos modelos pueden ser más fiables para los estudios de impacto, que a menudo implican una extrapolación más allá del rango de los conjuntos de datos de calibración disponibles. Este documento propone un enfoque de modelización que reemplaza el reservorio de agua subterránea en los modelos conceptuales de precipitación-escorrentía por un componente de agua subterránea más detallado y con mayor base física. El enfoque permite evaluar el impacto en las condiciones del agua subterránea por diferentes modelos de recarga y mejorar el desempeño del modelo en la simulación del flujo de base. La metodología comienza con tres modelos conceptuales bien calibrados y agrupados, que luego fueron desagregados en códigos distribuidos espacialmente para proporcionar información espacio-temporal sobre la recarga de aguas subterráneas. El enfoque se probó para tres modelos conceptuales y se aplicó a una cuenca en Bélgica. Se encontró que los resultados de los modelos son consistentes con respecto a las observaciones cuando se evalúan las variaciones estacionales de las cargas hidráulicas del agua subterránea y la descarga acumulativa de agua subterránea. Sin embargo, la evaluación de las formas de los hidrogramas fluviales y de las variaciones de la capa freática reveló resultados distintos producidos por los diferentes modelos de recarga.
摘要
地下水补给在地下水资源可持续性中有着重要作用。包括数值水文模型在内的许多方法可用于量化地下水补给量。已有研究评估了降雨-径流模型的补给信息整合于地下水模型的效果。然而,这些研究主要局限于单一的水文模型,无法评估不同补给条件输入对地下水状况的影响。此外,这些研究中使用的水文补给模型通常是完全分布式的和基于物理机制的,导致了模型结构的高度复杂性,因此同样在校准中也存在困难。另一方面,这些模型对于经常超出模型校准数据范围之外的外推影响研究更可靠。本文提出了利用更详尽更具物理机制的地下水模型替代概念性降雨-径流模型中地下水库的建模方法。该方法可以评估不同补给模型对地下水状况的影响,并改善模型对基流的模拟效果。该方法开始利用三个经过较好校准的集总概念模型,然后将其分解为空间分布代码以生成地下水补给的时空信息。该方法经过了三种概念模型的测试,并应用于比利时的一个集水区。在评估地下水位季节性变化和累积的地下水排泄量时,发现模型结果与观测结果一致。然而,对河流过程线形状和潜水位变化的评估时发现不同补给模型产生不同结果。
Resumo
A recarga das águas subterrâneas desempenha um papel importante na sustentabilidade dos recursos hídricos subterrâneos. Muitas abordagens estão disponíveis para quantificar a recarga, incluído o uso de modelos hidrológicos numéricos. Vários estudos analisaram a eficácia da integração da informação da recarga de modelos de chuva-vazão em modelos hidrogeológicos. Estes estudos, entretanto, têm sido mais restritos a um único modelo hidrológico e não foram capazes para avaliar o impacto na simulação das condições das águas subterrâneas causadas por diferentes fontes de recarga. Além disso, os modelos hidrológicos de recarga utilizados neste estudo são frequentemente distribuídos e com base física, resultando em alta complexidade na estrutura do modelo e, portanto, colocam desafios de equifinalidade na calibração. Por outro lado, estes modelos podem ser mais confiáveis para estudos de impacto, que muitas vezes envolvem extrapolação além do intervalo de conjuntos de dados de calibração disponíveis. Este artigo propôs uma metodologia de modelagem que substituí o reservatório de água subterrânea em um modelo conceitual chuva-vazão por um componente de água subterrânea mais detalhado e com maior sentido físico. A abordagem permite analisar o impacto nas condições das águas subterrâneas por diferentes modelos de recarga e melhora o desempenho na simulação do fluxo de base. A metodologia começa com três modelos conceituais concentrados bem calibrados, que foram então desagregados em códigos espacialmente distribuídos para melhorar a informação espaço-temporal da recarga subterrânea. A abordagem foi testada para três modelos conceituais e aplicada em uma bacia hidrográfica na Bélgica. Verificou-se que os resultados do modelo eram consistentes em relação às observações quando avaliados para variações sazonais das cargas potenciométricas e para a descarga subterrânea cumulativa. No entanto, a avaliação das formas da hidrografia do rio e as variações do lençol freático revelaram resultados distintos produzidos pelos diferentes modelos de recarga.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ajami NK, Gupta H, Wagener T, Sorooshian S (2004) Calibration of a semi-distributed hydrologic model for streamflow estimation along a river system. J Hydrol 298:112–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2004.03.033
Apip ST, Tachikawa Y, Takara K (2012) Spatial lumping of a distributed rainfall-sediment-runoff model and its effective lumping scale. Hydrol Process 871:855–871. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.8300
Arnold JG, Allen PM (1999) Automated methods for estimating Baseflow and ground water recharge from streamflow Records. J Am Water Resour Assoc 35:411–424. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.1999.tb03599.x
Arnold JG, Allen PM, Bernhardt G (1993) A comprehensive surface-groundwater flow model. J Hydrol 142:47–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1694(93)90004-S
Arsenault R, Brissette FP (2014) Continuous streamflow prediction in ungauged basins: the effects of equifinality and parameter set selection on uncertainty in regionalization approaches. Water Resour Res 50:6135–6153. https://doi.org/10.1002/2013WR014898
Asoka A, Gleeson T, Wada Y, Mishra V (2017) Relative contribution of monsoon precipitation and pumping to changes in groundwater storage in India. Nat Geosci 10:109–117. https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2869
Bailey RT, Wible TC, Arabi M, Records RM, Ditty J (2016) Assessing regional-scale spatio-temporal patterns of groundwater–surface water interactions using a coupled SWAT-MODFLOW model. Hydrol Process 30:4420–4433. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.10933
Barron O, Pollock D, Crosbie R, Dawes W, Charles S, Mpelasoka F, Aryal S, Donn M, Wurcker B (2010) The impact of climate change on groundwater resources: the climate sensitivity of groundwater recharge in Australia. CSIRO. http://www.clw.csiro.au/publications/waterforahealthycountry/2010/wfhc-climate-change-impact-groundwater.pdf. Accessed July 2019
Batelaan O, De Smedt F, Triest L (2003) Regional groundwater discharge: phreatophyte mapping, groundwater modelling and impact analysis of land-use change. J Hydrol 275:86–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(03)00018-0
Beven K (1993) Prophecy, reality and uncertainty in distributed hydrological modelling. Adv Water Resour 16:41–51
Beven K (2006) A manifesto for the equifinality thesis. J Hydrol 320:18–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2005.07.007
Blöschl G, Sivapalan M (1995) Scale issues in hydrological modelling: a review. Hydrol Process 9:251–290. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.3360090305
Breuer L, Huisman JA, Willems P, Bormann H, Bronstert A, Croke BFW, Frede H, Gräff T, Hubrechts L, Jakeman AJ, Kite G, Lanini J, Leavesley G, Lettenmaier DP, Lindström G, Seibert J, Sivapalan M, Viney NR (2009) Assessing the impact of land use change on hydrology by ensemble modeling (LUCHEM), I: model intercomparison with current land use. Adv Water Resour 32:129–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2008.10.003
Chapman T (1999) A comparison of algorithms for stream flow recession and baseflow separation. Hydrol Process 13:701–714. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1085(19990415)13:5<701::AID-HYP774>3.0.CO;2-2
Chen X, Yang T, Wang X, Xu CY, Yu Z (2013) Uncertainty intercomparison of different hydrological models in simulating extreme flows. Water Resour Manag 27:1393–1409. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-012-0244-5
Coetsiers M, Walraevens K (2009) The Neogene aquifer, Flanders, Belgium. In: Edmunds WM, Shand P (eds) Natural groundwater quality. Blackwell, Oxford, UK, pp 263–286
Dams J, Woldeamlak ST, Batelaan O (2008) Predicting land-use change and its impact on the groundwater system of the Kleine Nete catchment, Belgium. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 12:1369–1385. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-12-1369-2008
Dams J, Salvadore E, Van Daele T, Ntegeka V, Willems P, Batelaan O (2012) Spatio-temporal impact of climate change on the groundwater system. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 16:1517–1531. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-16-1517-2012
Dams J, Nossent J, Senbeta TB, Willems P, Batelaan O (2015) Multi-model approach to assess the impact of climate change on runoff. J Hydrol 529:1601–1616. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2015.08.023
Davison B, van der Kamp G (2009) Low-flows in deterministic modelling: a brief review. Can Water Resour J 33:181–194. https://doi.org/10.4296/cwrj3302181
De Smedt F, Batelaan O (2001) The impact of land-use changes on the groundwater in the Grote Nete river basin, Belgium. In:Ribeiro L (ed) Proceedings of the 3rd International Conferenceon ‘Future Groundwater Resources at Risk’. Lisbon, Portugal,25–27 June 2001, pp 151–158
Delfs J-O, Wang W, Kolditz O, Blumensaat F, Krebs P (2011) Coupling hydrogeological with surface runoff model in a Poltva case study in western Ukraine. Environ Earth Sci 65:1439–1457. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-011-1285-4
Delottier H, Pryet A, Dupuy A (2017) Why should practitioners be concerned about predictive uncertainty of groundwater management models? Water Resour Manag 31:61–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-016-1508-2
Delottier H, Pryet A, Lemieux JM, Dupuy A (2018) Estimating groundwater recharge uncertainty from joint application of an aquifer test and the water-table fluctuation method. Hydrogeol J 26:2495–2505. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-018-1790-6
DHI (2007) Mike 11: a modelling system for rivers and channels: reference manual. DHI, Perth, Australia
Doble RC, Crosbie RS (2016) Review: Current and emerging methods for catchment-scale modelling of recharge and evapotranspiration from shallow groundwater. Hydrogeol J 25:3–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-016-1470-3
Dobler C, Hagemann S, Wilby RL, St J (2012) Quantifying different sources of uncertainty in hydrological projections in an alpine watershed. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 4343–4360. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-16-4343-2012
Eckhardt K (2005) How to construct recursive digital filters for baseflow separation. Hydrol Process 19:507–515. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.5675
Essaid H, Hill BR (2014) Watershed-scale modeling of streamflow change in incised montane meadows. Water Resour Res 50:2657–2678. https://doi.org/10.1002/2013WR014420.Received
Gedeon M, Wemaere I, Labat S (2011) Characterization of groundwater flow in the environment of the Boom Clay formation. Phys Chem Earth 36:1486–1495. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pce.2011.07.089
Gedeon M, Wemaere I, Marivoet J (2007) Regional groundwater model of north-east Belgium. J Hydrol 335:133–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2006.11.006
Gee GW, Hillel D (1988) Groundwater recharge in arid regions: review and critique of estimation methods. Hydrol Process 2:255–266
Gong L, Widén-Nilsson E, Halldin S, Xu CY (2009) Large-scale runoff routing with an aggregated network-response function. J Hydrol 368:237–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.02.007
Guzman JA, Moriasi DN, Gowda PH, Steiner JL, Starks PJ, Arnold JG, Srinivasan R (2015) A model integration framework for linking SWAT and MODFLOW. Environ Model Softw 73:103–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2015.08.011
Harbaugh AW (2005) MODFLOW-2005: the U.S. Geological Survey modular ground-water model: the ground-water flow process. US Geol Surv Techniques Methods 6-A16
Hassan SMT, Lubczynski MW, Niswonger RG, Su Z (2014) Surface–groundwater interactions in hard rocks in Sardon catchment of western Spain: an integrated modeling approach. J Hydrol 517:390–410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.05.026
Healy RW, Cook PG (2002) Using groundwater levels to estimate recharge. Hydrogeol J 10:91–109. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-001-0178-0
Healy RW, Scanlon BR (2010) Estimating groundwater recharge. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
Herrmann F, Keller L, Kunkel R, Vereecken H, Wendland F (2015) Determination of spatially differentiated water balance components including groundwater recharge on the Federal State level: a case study using the mGROWA model in North Rhine-Westphalia (Germany). J Hydrol Reg Stud 4:294–312
Huntington JL, Niswonger RG (2012) Role of surface-water and groundwater interactions on projected summertime streamflow in snow dominated regions: an integrated modeling approach. Water Resour Res 48:1–20. https://doi.org/10.1029/2012WR012319
Kim NW, Chung IM, Won YS, Arnold JG (2008) Development and application of the integrated SWAT–MODFLOW model. J Hydrol 356(1–2):1–16
King AC, Raiber M, Cox ME, Cendón DI (2017) Comparison of groundwater recharge estimation techniques in an alluvial aquifer system with an intermittent/ephemeral stream (Queensland, Australia). Hydrogeol J 25:1759–1777. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-017-1565-5
Knowling MJ, Werner AD (2016) Estimability of recharge through groundwater model calibration: insights from a field-scale steady-state example. J Hydrol 540:973–987. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2016.07.003
Kollet SJ, Maxwell RM (2008) Capturing the influence of groundwater dynamics on land surface processes using an integrated, distributed watershed model. Water Resour Res 44:1–18. https://doi.org/10.1029/2007WR006004
Kyoung JL, Engel BA, Tang Z, Choi J, Kim KS, Muthukrishnan S, Tripathy D (2005) Automated web GIS based hydrograph analysis tool, WHAT. J Am Water Resour Assoc 41:1407–1416. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2005.tb03808.x
Liu YB, de Smedt F (2004) WetSpa Extension, a GIS-based hydrologic model for flood prediction and watershed management documentation and user manual. Vrije University, Brussels, 126 pp
Markstrom SL, Niswonger RG, Regan RS, Prudic DE, Barlow PM (2008) GSFLOW—coupled ground-water and surface-water flow model based on the integration of the precipitation-runoff modeling system (PRMS) and the Modular Ground-Water Flow Model (MODFLOW-2005). US Geol Surv 240. https://doi.org/10.13140/2.1.2741.9202
Markstrom SL, Regan RS, Hay LE, Viger RJ, Webb RMT, Payn RA, LaFontaine JH (2015) PRMS-IV, the Precipitation-Runoff Modeling System, version 4. US Geol Surv Techniques Methods 6-B7
Moore ID, Gessler PE, Nielsen GA, Peterson GA (1993) Soil attribute prediction using terrain analysis. Soil Sci Soc Am J 57:443. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1993.03615995005700020026x
Moore RJ (1985) The probability-distributed principle and runoff production at point and basin scales. Hydrol Sci J 30:273–297. https://doi.org/10.1080/02626668509490989
Moore RJ (2007) The PDM rainfall-runoff model. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 11:483–499. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-11-483-2007
Nielsen SA, Hansen E (1973) Numerical simulation of the rainfall–runoff process on a daily basis. Nord Hydrol 4:171–190
Orth R, Staudinger M, Seneviratne SI, Seibert J, Zappa M (2015) Does model performance improve with complexity? A case study with three hydrological models. J Hydrol 523:147–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2015.01.044
Panday S, Huyakorn PS (2004) A fully coupled physically-based spatially-distributed model for evaluating surface/subsurface flow. Adv Water Resour 27:361–382. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2004.02.016
Perrin C, Michel C, Andréassian V (2003) Improvement of a parsimonious model for streamflow simulation. J Hydrol 279:275–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(03)00225-7
Sanford W (2002) Recharge and groundwater models: an overview. Hydrogeol J 10:110–120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-001-0173-5
Scanlon BR, Healy RW, Cook PG (2002) Choosing appropriate technique for quantifying groundwater recharge. Hydrogeol J 10:18–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-0010176-2
Schmitz O, Karssenberg D, van Deursen WPA, Wesseling CG (2009) Linking external components to a spatio-temporal modelling framework: coupling MODFLOW and PCRaster. Environ Model Softw 24:1088–1099. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2009.02.018
Schoups G, Van De Giesen NC, Savenije HHG (2008) Model complexity control for hydrologic prediction. Water Resour Res 44:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1029/2008WR006836
Shamsudduha M, Taylor RG, Ahmed KM, Zahid A (2011) The impact of intensive groundwater abstraction on recharge to a shallow regional aquifer system: evidence from Bangladesh. Hydrogeol J 19:901–916. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-011-0723-4
Sophocleous M, Perkins SP (2000) Methodology and application of combined watershed and ground-water models in Kansas. J Hydrol 236:185–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(00)00293-6
Sophocleous MA, Koelliker JK, Govindaraju RS, Birdie T, Ramireddygari SR, Perkins SP (1999) Integrated numerical modeling for basin-wide water management: the case of the Rattlesnake Creek basin in south-central Kansas. J Hydrol 214:179–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(98)00289-3
Sulis M, Meyerhoff SB, Paniconi C, Maxwell RM, Putti M, Kollet SJ (2010) A comparison of two physics-based numerical models for simulating surface water-groundwater interactions. Adv Water Resour 33:456–467. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2010.01.010
Sulis M, Paniconi C, Rivard C, Harvey R, Chaumont D (2011) Assessment of climate change impacts at the catchment scale with a detailed hydrological model of surface-subsurface interactions and comparison with a land surface model. Water Resour Res 47:1–22. https://doi.org/10.1029/2010wr009167
Sulis M, Paniconi C, Marrocu M, Huard D, Chaumont D (2012) Hydrologic response to multimodel climate output using a physically based model of groundwater/surface water interactions. Water Resour Res 48:1–18. https://doi.org/10.1029/2012WR012304
Tarboron DG (1997) A new method for the determination of flow directions and upslope areas in grid digital elevation models. Water Resour Res 33:309–319
Therrien R, McLaren RG, Sudicky EA, Panday SM (2010) HydroGeoSphere: a three-dimensional numerical model describing fully-integrated subsurface and surface flow and solute transport. Groundw Simul 457. https://doi.org/10.5123/S1679-49742014000300002
Thompson JA, Bell JC, Butler CA (2001) Digital elevation model resolution: effects on terrain attribute calculation and quantitative soil-landscape modeling. Soil Water Clim 100(1–2):67–89
Tran QQ, De Niel J, Willems P (2018) Spatially distributed conceptual hydrological model building: a generic top-down approach starting from lumped models. Water Resour Res 54:8064–8085. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018WR023566
Van Steenbergen N, Willems P (2012) Method for testing the accuracy of rainfall-runoff models in predicting peak flow changes due to rainfall changes, in a climate changing context. J Hydrol 414–415:425–434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2011.11.017
Vandersteen K, Gedeon M, Beerten K (2014) A synthesis of hydraulic conductivity measurements of the subsurface in northeastern Belgium. Geol Belgica 17:196–210
Vansteenkiste T, Tavakoli M, Ntegeka V, De Smedt F, Batelaan O, Pereira F, Willems P (2014a) Intercomparison of hydrological model structures and calibration approaches in climate scenario impact projections. J Hydrol 519:743–755. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.07.062
Vansteenkiste T, Tavakoli M, Van Steenbergen N, De Smedt F, Batelaan O, Pereira F, Willems P (2014b) Intercomparison of five lumped and distributed models for catchment runoff and extreme flow simulation. J Hydrol 511:335–349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.01.050
Viney NR, Bormann H, Breuer L, Bronstert A, Croke BFW, Frede H, Gräff T, Hubrechts L, Huisman JA, Jakeman AJ, Kite GW, Lanini J, Leavesley G, Lettenmaier DP, Lindström G, Seibert J, Sivapalan M, Willems P (2009) Assessing the impact of land use change on hydrology by ensemble modelling (LUCHEM) II: ensemble combinations and predictions. Adv Water Resour 32:147–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2008.05.006
Wang ZM, Batelaan O, De Smedt F (1996) A distributed model for water and energy transfer between soils, plants and atmosphere (WetSpa). Phys Chem Earth 21:189–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-1946(97)85583-8
Willems P (2009) A time series tool to support the multi-criteria performance evaluation of rainfall-runoff models. Environ Model Softw 24:311–321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2008.09.005
Willems P (2014) Parsimonious rainfall–runoff model construction supported by time series processing and validation of hydrological extremes, part 1: step-wise model-structure identification and calibration approach. J Hydrol 510:578–590
Willems P, Mora D, Vansteenkiste T, Taye MT, Van Steenbergen N (2014) Parsimonious rainfall-runoff model construction supported by time series processing and validation of hydrological extremes, part 2: Intercomparison of models and calibration approaches. J Hydrol 510:591–609. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.01.028
Woldeamlak ST, Batelaan O, De Smedt F (2007) Effects of climate change on the groundwater system in the Grote-Nete catchment, Belgium. Hydrogeol J 15:891–901. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-006-0145-x
Acknowledgements
The construction and calibration of the Grote Nete groundwater model was based on the regional but steadystate model for the Nete catchment developed by the Belgian Nuclear Research Center (SCK-CEN). Observed groundwater levels were obtained through the website https://www.dov.vlaanderen.be/ of the authorities of Flanders in Belgium.
Funding
This research was supported by the KU Leuven internal research grant (reference No. OT/14/066).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix
Appendix
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Tran, Q.Q., Willems, P. & Huysmans, M. Coupling catchment runoff models to groundwater flow models in a multi-model ensemble approach for improved prediction of groundwater recharge, hydraulic heads and river discharge. Hydrogeol J 27, 3043–3061 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-019-02018-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-019-02018-8