Water Resources

, Volume 45, Supplement 1, pp 135–145 | Cite as

Modeling the Genetic Components of River Runoff for the Mozhaisk Reservoir Watershed

  • Yu. G. MotovilovEmail author
  • K. V. Suchkova


The physically-based ECOMAG model of river runoff formation has been adapted to simulate the processes in the Mozhaisk Reservoir watershed. The main goal of the study was to correctly simulate the genetic components of the runoff considering the hydrochemical methods of identifying the water masses in calibrating the model parameters. To break down the runoff hydrograph by genetic components, a technique was applied, based on the chemical–statistical analysis of the composition of the water mass mixture. The many years’ runoff hydrographs from 3 gauging stations and hydrochemical data from which the genetic components of the river runoff have been determined were used to calibrate model parameters. A satisfactory agreement has been obtained between the runoff hydrographs from gauge stations and the hydrographs simulated by the model and obtained by analyzing hydrochemical data of the genetic components of the river water. The regularities of the annual distribution of the genetic runoff components have been analyzed and the genetic types of waters prevailing in different phases of water regime have been demonstrated. The proposed method of determining model parameters by hydrometric and hydrogeochemical data allows simulation of the behavior of the water sources and description of the spatial-temporal genetic structure of the river runoff.


simulation river runoff formation hydrograph hydrogeochemical data genetic components 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Antokhina, E.N. and Zhuk, V.A. Application of the ECOMAG model to simulation of river runoff from watersheds differing in their area, Vodn. Khoz. Rossii: Probl., Tekhnol., Upravl., 2011, no. 4, pp. 17–32.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beven, K. Changing ideas in hydrology—the case of physically-based models, J. Hydrol., 1989, vol. 105, no. 1–2, pp. 157–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bloschl, G. and Sivapalan, M. Scale issues in hydrological modeling: a review, Hydrol. Proc., 1995, vol. 9, pp. 251–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cristophersen, N. and Hooper, R.P. Multivariate analysis of stream water chemical data: the use of principal component analysis for the end-member mixing problem, Water Resour. Res., 1992, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 99–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Edelstein, K.K. and Smakhtina, O.Yu. Genetic river runoff structure and the chemical-statistical method for separation of its elements. Water Resour., 1991, vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 5–20.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gelfan, A., Gustafsson, D., Motovilov, Yu, Arheimer, B., Kalugin, A., Krylenko, I., and Lavrenov, A. Climate change impact on the water regime of two great Arctic rivers: modeling and uncertainty issues, Clim. Change, 2016, doi 10.1007/s10584-016-1710-5Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gelfan, A., Motovilov, Yu., Krylenko, I., Moreido, V., and Zakharova, E. Testing the robustness of the physically-based ECOMAG model with respect to changing conditions, Hydr. Sci. J., 2015, vol. 60, no. 8, pp. 1266–1285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gubareva, T.S., Boldeskul, A.G., Gartsman, B.I., and Shamov, V.V. Analysis of natural tracers and genetic runoff components in mixing models: case study of small watersheds in Primor’e, Water Resour., 2016, vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 629–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gubareva, T.S., Gartsman, B.I., Shamov, V.V., Boldeskul, A.G., and Kozhevnikova, N.K. Genetic disintegration of the runoff hydrograph, Russ. Meteorol. Hydrol., 2015, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 215–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hooper, R.P. Diagnostic tools for mixing models of stream water chemistry. Water Resour. Res., 2003, vol. 39, no. 3, doi 10.1029/2002WR001528Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kichigina, N.V., Gubareva, T.S., Shamov, V.V., and Gartsman, B.I. Tracer studies of river runoff formation in the watershed of Lake Baikal, Geografiya i Prirodnye Resursy, 2016, no. 5, pp. 60–69.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kuchment, L.S. Rechnoj stok (genezis, modelirovanie, predvychislenie) (River Runoff: Genesis, Simulation, Preliminary Calculation), Moscow: Inst. Vodn. Probl., 2008.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Liu, F., Williams, M. W., and Caine, N. Source waters and flow paths in an alpine catchment, Colorado Front Range, United States. Water Resour. Res., 2004, vol. 40, no. 9, W09401.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Madsen, H. Parameter estimation in distributed hydrological catchment modelling using automatic calibration with multiple objectives, Advan. Water Resours, 2003, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 205–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mamaev, O.I. Termohalinnyj analiz vod Mirovogo okeana (The Thermohaline Analysis of the Waters of the World Ocean), Leningrad: Gidrometizdat, 1987.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Moriasi, D.N., Gitau, M.W., Pai, N., and Daggupati, P. Hydrologic and Water Quality Models: Performance Measures and Evaluation Criteria, Trans. ASABE, 2015, vol. 58, no. 6, pp. 1763–1785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Motovilov, Yu.G. Hydrological simulation of river watersheds at different spatial scales: 1. Generalization and averaging algorithms, Water Resour., 2016, vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 429–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Motovilov, Yu.G. Hydrological simulation of river watersheds at different spatial scales: 2. Test results, Water Resour., 2016, vol. 43, no. 5, pp. 743–753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Motovilov, Yu.G. Modeling fields of river runoff (a case study for the Lena River watershed), Russ. Meteorol. Hydrol., 2017, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 121–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Motovilov, Yu.G., and Fashchevskaia, T.B. Spatially distributed model of the heavy metals flow formation in the river watershed, Voda: Khim. Ekol., 2018, vols. 1−3, pp. 18–31.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Motovilov, Y.G., Gottschalk, L., Engeland, L., and Rodhe, A. Validation of a distributed hydrological model against spatial observation, Agric. For. Meteorol. 1999, vols. 98−99, pp. 257–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nash, J.E., and Sutcliffe, J.V. River flow forecasting through conceptual models part I—A discussion of principles, J. Hydrol., 1970, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 282–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zhang, Q., Knowles, J.F., Barnes, R.T., Cowie, R.M., Rock, N., and Williams, M.W. Surface and subsurface water contributions to streamflow from a mesoscale watershed in complex mountain terrain, Hydrol. Proc., 2018, vol. 32, no. 7, pp. 954–967CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Voronkov, P.P. Gidrohimiya mestnogo stoka evropejskoj territorii SSSR (Hydrochemistry of the local runoff in the European part of the USSR), Leningrad: Gidrometeoizdat, 1970.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Pleiades Publishing, Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Water Problems InstituteRussian Academy of SciencesMoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations