Advertisement

Water Resources Management

, Volume 18, Issue 5, pp 425–438 | Cite as

Possible Regional Probability Distribution Type of Canadian Annual Streamflow by L-moments

  • Sheng Yue
  • Chun Yuan Wang
Article

Abstract

For effective planning, design, and management of water resources engineering, the probability distribution of annual streamflow is necessary. The method of L-moments is applied to identify the probability distribution type of annual streamflow in different climatic regions of Canada. In the Pacific and southern British Columbia mountains (regions 1 and 2), the generalized extreme value (GEV) distribution fits the observations best with the 3-parameter lognormal (LN3) and log Pearson type III (LP3) as potential candidates. In Yukon and northern British Columbia (region 3), the LN3 distribution corresponds to observations best with the LP3 and P3 as potential candidates. In the northwestern forest (region 5), the LP3 distribution matches observations best with the P3 and GEV as potential candidates. In Arctic Tundra (region 10), the 3-parameter Weibull (W3) is the best one with the LN3 and P3 as potential candidates. The P3 distribution provides a best-fit to observations in the Prairies (region 4), northeastern forest (region 6), great Lakes and St. Lawrence (region 7), Atlantic (region 8), and Mackenzie (region 9) with the LN3, LP3, and GEV as potential candidates.

annual streamflow discordancy L-moments regional frequency analysis regional hydrology statistical hydrology 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adamowski, K., 2000, ‘Regional analysis of annual maximum and partial flood data by nonparametric and L-moments methods’, J. Hydrol. 229, 219–231.Google Scholar
  2. Ben-Zvi, A. and Azmon, B., 1997, ‘Joint use of L-moment diagram and goodness-of-fit test: A case study of diverse series’, J. Hydrol. 198, 245–259.Google Scholar
  3. Environment Canada, 1999, ‘Establishment of the Reference Hydrometric Basin Network (RHBN) for Canada’, Environment Canada.Google Scholar
  4. Finlayson, B. L. and McMahon, T. A., 1992, Global Runoff. Encyclopedia of Earth System Science, Vol. 2, Academic Press, Inc., San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  5. Gullett, D. W., 1992, ‘Development of an historical Canadian climate database for temperature’, in G. W. Kite and K. D. Harvey (eds.), Using Hydrometric Data to Detect and Monitor Climatic Change, Proceedings of NHRI Workshop No. 8., National Hydrology Research Institute, Saskatoon, SK, pp. 27–31.Google Scholar
  6. Hare, F. K. and Thomas, M. K., 1979, Climate Canada, John Wiley and Sons Canada Limited, 2nd ed., Toronto.Google Scholar
  7. Hosking, J. R. M., 2000, Research Report: Fortran Routines for Use with the Method of L-Moments, Version 3.03. RC 20525(90933), IBM Research Division, New York.Google Scholar
  8. Hosking, J. R. M. and Wallis, 1993, ‘Some statistics useful in regional frequency analysis’, Water Resour. Res. 29(2), 271–281.Google Scholar
  9. Hosking, J. R. M. and Wallis, 1997, Regional Frequency Analysis: An Approach Based on L-Moments, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.Google Scholar
  10. Kalinin, G. P., 1971, Global Hydrology, National Technology Information Service, Springfield, VA.Google Scholar
  11. Kroll, C. N. and Vogel, R. M., 2002, ‘Probability distribution of low streamflow series in the United States’, ASCE J. Hydrol. Engrg. 7(2), 137–146.Google Scholar
  12. Kumar, R., Chatterjee, C., Kumar, S., Lohani, A. K. and Singh, R. D., 2003, ‘Development of regional flood frequency relationships using L-moments for Middle Ganga Plains Subzone 1(f ) of India’, Water Resour. Mgmt. 17(4), 243–257.Google Scholar
  13. Lof, G. O. G. and Hardison, C. H., 1966, ‘Storage requirements for water in the United States’, Water Resour. Res. 2(3), 232–354.Google Scholar
  14. Markovic, R. D., 1965, Probability of Best Fit to Distributions of Annual Precipitation and Runoff, Hydrological Paper, No. 8, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO.Google Scholar
  15. McMahon, T. A., Finlayson, B. L., Haines, A. T., and Srikanthan, R., 1992, Global Runoff-Continental Comparisons of Annual Flows and Peak Discharges, Catena Verlag, Cremlingen-Destedt, Germany.Google Scholar
  16. Pearson, C. P., 1991, ‘New Zealand regional flood frequency analysis using L-moments’, The New Zealand Hydrological Society, J. Hydrol. 30(2), 53–64.Google Scholar
  17. Pearson, C. P., 1995, ‘Regional frequency analysis of low flows in New Zealand rivers’, The New Zealand Hydrological Society, J. Hydrol. 33(2), 94–122.Google Scholar
  18. Peel, M. C., Wang, Q. J., Vogel, R. and McMahon, T. A., 2001, ‘The utility of L-moment ratio diagrams for selecting a regional probability distribution’, Hydrol. Sci. J. 46(1), 147–155.Google Scholar
  19. Pilon, P. J. and Adamowski, K., 1992, ‘The value of regional information to flood frequency analysis using the method of L-moments’, Can. J. Civil Engrg. 19, 137–147.Google Scholar
  20. Rao, A. R. and Hamed, K. H., 1994, ‘Frequency analysis of upper Cauvery flood data by L-moments’, Water Resour. Mgmt 8, 183–201.Google Scholar
  21. Vogel, R. M. and Wilson, I., 1996, ‘Probability distribution of annual maximum, mean, and minimum streamflows in the United States’, ASCE J. Hydrol. Engrg. 1(2), 69–76.Google Scholar
  22. Yevjevich, V., 1963, ‘Fluctuations of Wet and Dry Years. Part I: Research Data Assembly and Mathematical Models’, Hydrological Paper, No. 1, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO.Google Scholar
  23. Yue, S. and Wang, C. Y., 2004, ‘Regional probability distributions of Canadian flood flows by L-moments’, J. Hydrol. (NZ) 43 (1), 59–73.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sheng Yue
    • 1
  • Chun Yuan Wang
    • 2
  1. 1.USEPANHEERL, Mid-Continent Ecology DivisionDuluthU.S.A
  2. 2.Water Resources & Hydropower SectionTwo-Evaluation Department, China Development Bank, Xicheng DistrictP.R. China

Personalised recommendations