# Comparative Evaluation of Five Hydrological Models in a Large-Scale and Tropical River Basin

^{1}

^{2}

^{3}

^{4}

^{*}

## Abstract

**:**

## 1. Introduction

## 2. Methodology

#### 2.1. HYMOD Model

#### 2.2. GR4J Model

#### 2.3. SMAP Model

#### 2.4. HBV Model

#### 2.5. MGB-IPH Model

#### 2.6. Performance Metrics

#### 2.7. Statistical Tests

#### 2.8. Bias Correction

## 3. Case Study

#### 3.1. Overview

#### 3.2. Data

#### 3.3. Results Analysis

## 4. Conclusions

## Author Contributions

## Funding

## Data Availability Statement

## Acknowledgments

## Conflicts of Interest

## References

- Coulibaly, P.; Anctil, F.; Bobée, B. Daily reservoir inflow forecasting using artificial neural networks with stopped training approach. J. Hydrol.
**2000**, 230, 244–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Zhang, D.; Peng, Q.; Lin, J.; Wang, D.; Liu, X.; Zhuang, J. Simulating reservoir operation using a recurrent neural network algorithm. Water
**2019**, 11, 865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Yang, S.; Yang, D.; Chen, J.; Zhao, B. Real-time reservoir operation using recurrent neural networks and inflow forecast from a distributed hydrological model. J. Hydrol.
**2019**, 579, 124229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Zhao, T.; Cai, X.; Yang, D. Effect of streamflow forecast uncertainty on real-time reservoir operation. Adv. Water Resour.
**2011**, 34, 495–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Koneti, S.; Sunkara, S.L.; Roy, P.S. Hydrological modeling with respect to impact of land-use and land-cover change on the runoff dynamics in Godavari River Basin using the HEC-HMS model. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf.
**2018**, 7, 206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Krysanova, V.; Donnelly, C.; Gelfan, A.; Gerten, D.; Arheimer, B.; Hattermann, F.; Kundzewicz, Z.W. How the performance of hydrological models relates to credibility of projections under climate change. Hydrol. Sci. J.
**2018**, 63, 696–720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Duan, Q.; Pappenberger, F.; Wood, A.; Cloke, H.L.; Schaake, J. Handbook of Hydrometeorological Ensemble Forecasting; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Devia, G.K.; Ganasri, B.; Dwarakish, G. A review on hydrological models. Aquat. Procedia
**2015**, 4, 1001–1007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Darbandsari, P.; Coulibaly, P. Inter-comparison of lumped hydrological models in data-scarce watersheds using different precipitation forcing data sets: Case study of Northern Ontario, Canada. J. Hydrol. Reg. Stud.
**2020**, 31, 100730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Wheater, H.; Jakeman, A.; Beven, K. Progress and Directions in Rainfall-Runoff Modelling; John Wiley and Sons Ltd.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1993. [Google Scholar]
- Pechlivanidis, I.; Jackson, B.; Mcintyre, N.; Wheater, H. Catchment scale hydrological modelling: A review of model types, calibration approaches and uncertainty analysis methods in the context of recent developments in technology and applications. Glob. NEST J.
**2011**, 13, 193–214. [Google Scholar] - Dawson, C.W.; Abrahart, R.J.; Shamseldin, A.Y.; Wilby, R.L. Flood estimation at ungauged sites using artificial neural networks. J. Hydrol.
**2006**, 319, 391–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Freire, P.K.d.M.M.; Santos, C.A.G.; da Silva, G.B.L. Analysis of the use of discrete wavelet transforms coupled with ANN for short-term streamflow forecasting. Appl. Soft Comput.
**2019**, 80, 494–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Camacho, F.; McLeod, A.I.; Hipel, K.W. Contemporaneous autoregressive-moving average (CARMA) modeling in water resources 1. JAWRA J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc.
**1985**, 21, 709–720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Hao, Z.; Singh, V.P. Review of dependence modeling in hydrology and water resources. Prog. Phys. Geogr.
**2016**, 40, 549–578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Chang, F.J.; Chang, Y.T. Adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system for prediction of water level in reservoir. Adv. Water Resour.
**2006**, 29, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Jaiswal, R.; Ali, S.; Bharti, B. Comparative evaluation of conceptual and physical rainfall–runoff models. Appl. Water Sci.
**2020**, 10, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Beven, K.; Freer, J. Equifinality, data assimilation, and uncertainty estimation in mechanistic modelling of complex environmental systems using the GLUE methodology. J. Hydrol.
**2001**, 249, 11–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Shi, P.; Chen, C.; Srinivasan, R.; Zhang, X.; Cai, T.; Fang, X.; Qu, S.; Chen, X.; Li, Q. Evaluating the SWAT model for hydrological modeling in the Xixian watershed and a comparison with the XAJ model. Water Resour. Manag.
**2011**, 25, 2595–2612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Newman, A.J.; Clark, M.P.; Winstral, A.; Marks, D.; Seyfried, M. The use of similarity concepts to represent subgrid variability in land surface models: Case study in a snowmelt-dominated watershed. J. Hydrometeorol.
**2014**, 15, 1717–1738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Liang, X.; Xie, Z. A new surface runoff parameterization with subgrid-scale soil heterogeneity for land surface models. Adv. Water Resour.
**2001**, 24, 1173–1193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Guo, S.; Guo, J.; Zhang, J.; Chen, H. VIC distributed hydrological model to predict climate change impact in the Hanjiang basin. Sci. China Ser. E Technol. Sci.
**2009**, 52, 3234–3239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Alvarenga, L.A.; de Mello, C.R.; Colombo, A.; Chou, S.C.; Cuartas, L.A.; Viola, M.R. Impacts of climate change on the hydrology of a Small Brazilian headwater catchment using the distributed hydrology-soil-vegetation model. Am. J. Clim. Chang.
**2018**, 7, 355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Moreda, F.; Koren, V.; Zhang, Z.; Reed, S.; Smith, M. Parameterization of distributed hydrological models: Learning from the experiences of lumped modeling. J. Hydrol.
**2006**, 320, 218–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Kirkby, M.; Beven, K. A physically based, variable contributing area model of basin hydrology. Hydrol. Sci. J.
**1979**, 24, 43–69. [Google Scholar] - Zhang, S.; Al-Asadi, K. Evaluating the effect of numerical schemes on hydrological simulations: HYMOD as a case study. Water
**2019**, 11, 329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Clark, M.P.; Kavetski, D. Ancient numerical daemons of conceptual hydrological modeling: 1. Fidelity and efficiency of time stepping schemes. Water Resour. Res.
**2010**, 46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Kavetski, D.; Clark, M.P. Ancient numerical daemons of conceptual hydrological modeling: 2. Impact of time stepping schemes on model analysis and prediction. Water Resour. Res.
**2010**, 46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Fenicia, F.; Kavetski, D.; Savenije, H.H. Elements of a flexible approach for conceptual hydrological modeling: 1. Motivation and theoretical development. Water Resour. Res.
**2011**, 47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Clark, M.P.; Slater, A.G.; Rupp, D.E.; Woods, R.A.; Vrugt, J.A.; Gupta, H.V.; Wagener, T.; Hay, L.E. Framework for Understanding Structural Errors (FUSE): A modular framework to diagnose differences between hydrological models. Water Resour. Res.
**2008**, 44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Clark, M.P.; Nijssen, B.; Lundquist, J.D.; Kavetski, D.; Rupp, D.E.; Woods, R.A.; Freer, J.E.; Gutmann, E.D.; Wood, A.W.; Brekke, L.D.; et al. The Structure for Unifying Multiple Modeling Alternatives (SUMMA), Version 1.0: Technical Description; NCAR Tech. Note NCAR/TN-5141STR; NCAR: Boulder, CO, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- ONS. Amplicação do Modelo SMAP/ONS Para PrevisãO de Vazões no Âmbito do SIN; ONS 0097/2018-RV3; ONS: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Siqueira, V.A.; Paiva, R.C.; Fleischmann, A.S.; Fan, F.M.; Ruhoff, A.L.; Pontes, P.R.; Paris, A.; Calmant, S.; Collischonn, W. Toward continental hydrologic–hydrodynamic modeling in South America. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.
**2018**, 22, 4815–4842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Fleischmann, A.S.; Siqueira, V.A.; Wongchuig-Correa, S.; Collischonn, W.; Paiva, R.C.D.D. The great 1983 floods in South American large rivers: A continental hydrological modelling approach. Hydrol. Sci. J.
**2020**, 65, 1358–1373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Brêda, J.P.L.F.; de Paiva, R.C.D.; Chou, S.C.; Collischonn, W. Assessing extreme precipitation from a regional climate model in different spatial–temporal scales: A hydrological perspective in South America. Int. J. Climatol.
**2022**. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Kumari, N.; Srivastava, A.; Sahoo, B.; Raghuwanshi, N.S.; Bretreger, D. Identification of suitable hydrological models for streamflow assessment in the Kangsabati River Basin, India, by using different model selection scores. Nat. Resour. Res.
**2021**, 30, 4187–4205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Ghimire, U.; Agarwal, A.; Shrestha, N.K.; Daggupati, P.; Srinivasan, G.; Than, H.H. Applicability of lumped hydrological models in a data-constrained river basin of Asia. J. Hydrol. Eng.
**2020**, 25, 05020018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Naeini, M.R.; Analui, B.; Gupta, H.V.; Duan, Q.; Sorooshian, S. Three decades of the Shuffled Complex Evolution (SCE-UA) optimization algorithm: Review and applications. Sci. Iran.
**2019**, 26, 2015–2031. [Google Scholar] - Lee, D.H. Automatic calibration of SWAT model using LH-OAT sensitivity analysis and SCE-UA optimization method. J. Korea Water Resour. Assoc.
**2006**, 39, 677–690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Gan, T.Y.; Biftu, G.F. Automatic calibration of conceptual rainfall-runoff models: Optimization algorithms, catchment conditions, and model structure. Water Resour. Res.
**1996**, 32, 3513–3524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Yapo, P.O.; Gupta, H.V.; Sorooshian, S. Multi-objective global optimization for hydrologic models. J. Hydrol.
**1998**, 204, 83–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Boyle, D.P. Multicriteria Calibration of Hydrologic Models. Ph.D. Thesis, The University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Perrin, C.; Michel, C.; Andréassian, V. Improvement of a parsimonious model for streamflow simulation. J. Hydrol.
**2003**, 279, 275–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Grouillet, B.; Ruelland, D.; Vaittinada Ayar, P.; Vrac, M. Sensitivity analysis of runoff modeling to statistical downscaling models in the western Mediterranean. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.
**2016**, 20, 1031–1047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Tian, Y.; Xu, Y.P.; Zhang, X.J. Assessment of climate change impacts on river high flows through comparative use of GR4J, HBV and Xinanjiang models. Water Resour. Manag.
**2013**, 27, 2871–2888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Traore, V.B.; Sambou, S.; Tamba, S.; Fall, S.; Diaw, A.T.; Cisse, M.T. Calibrating the rainfall-runoff model GR4J and GR2M on the Koulountou river basin, a tributary of the Gambia river. Am. J. Environ. Prot.
**2014**, 3, 36–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Hublart, P.; Ruelland, D.; García De Cortázar Atauri, I.; Ibacache, A. Reliability of a conceptual hydrological model in a semi-arid Andean catchment facing water-use changes. Proc. Int. Assoc. Hydrol. Sci.
**2015**, 371, 203–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Lopes, J.E.G.; Braga, B., Jr.; Conejo, J. SMAP—A simplified hydrologic model. In Applied Modeling in Catchment Hydrology; Singh, V.P., Ed.; Water Resources Publications: Littleton, CO, USA, 1982. [Google Scholar]
- Cavalcante, M.R.G.; da Cunha Luz Barcellos, P.; Cataldi, M. Flash flood in the mountainous region of Rio de Janeiro state (Brazil) in 2011: Part I—calibration watershed through hydrological SMAP model. Nat. Hazards
**2020**, 102, 1117–1134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - da Cunha Luz Barcellos, P.; Cataldi, M. Flash flood and extreme rainfall forecast through one-way coupling of WRF-SMAP models: Natural hazards in Rio de Janeiro state. Atmosphere
**2020**, 11, 834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Maciel, G.M.; Cabral, V.A.; Marcato, A.L.M.; Júnior, I.C.S.; Honório, L.D.M. Daily Water Flow Forecasting via Coupling Between SMAP and Deep Learning. IEEE Access
**2020**, 8, 204660–204675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Campos, D.O.; dos Santos2 Pablo, J.W.B.; de Assis, R. Application of the SMAP hydrological model in the determination of water production in a coastal watershed. Rev. Bras. De Geogr. Física
**2018**, 11, 124–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Bergstrom, S. The HBV Model-Its Structure and Applications; SMHI: Norrkoping, Sweden, 1992. [Google Scholar]
- Aghakouchak, A.; Habib, E. Application of a conceptual hydrologic model in teaching hydrologic processes. Int. J. Eng. Educ.
**2010**, 26, 963–973. [Google Scholar] - Collischonn, W.; Allasia, D.; Da Silva, B.C.; Tucci, C.E. The MGB-IPH model for large-scale rainfall—Runoff modelling. Hydrol. Sci. J.
**2007**, 52, 878–895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Siqueira, V.A.; Fan, F.M.; De Paiva, R.C.D.; Ramos, M.H.; Collischonn, W. Potential skill of continental-scale, medium-range ensemble streamflow forecasts for flood prediction in South America. J. Hydrol.
**2020**, 590, 125430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Oliveira, R.F.d.; Zolin, C.A.; Victoria, D.d.C.; Lopes, T.R.; Vendrusculo, L.G.; Paulino, J. Hydrological calibration and validation of the MGB-IPH model for water resource management in the upper Teles Pires River basin in the Amazon-Cerrado ecotone in Brazil. Acta Amaz.
**2019**, 49, 54–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Matos, T.S.; Uliana, E.M.; Martins, C.A.d.S.; Rapalo, L.M.C. Regionalization of maximum, minimum and mean streamflows for the Juruena River basin, Brazil. Rev. Ambiente Água
**2020**, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Fan, F.M.; Pontes, P.R.M.; Beltrame, L.F.; Collischonn, W.; Buarque, D.C. Operational flood forecasting system to the Uruguay River Basin using the hydrological model MGB-IPH. In Proceedings of the ICFM-6 Proceedings, São Paulo, Brasil, 16–18 September 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Fan, F.M.; Schwanenberg, D.; Collischonn, W.; Weerts, A. Verification of inflow into hydropower reservoirs using ensemble forecasts of the TIGGE database for large scale basins in Brazil. J. Hydrol. Reg. Stud.
**2015**, 4, 196–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Haghnegahdar, A.; Tolson, B.A.; Craig, J.R.; Paya, K.T. Assessing the performance of a semi-distributed hydrological model under various watershed discretization schemes. Hydrol. Process.
**2015**, 29, 4018–4031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Pontes, P.R.M.; Fan, F.M.; Fleischmann, A.S.; de Paiva, R.C.D.; Buarque, D.C.; Siqueira, V.A.; Jardim, P.F.; Sorribas, M.V.; Collischonn, W. MGB-IPH model for hydrological and hydraulic simulation of large floodplain river systems coupled with open source GIS. Environ. Model. Softw.
**2017**, 94, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Nash, J.E.; Sutcliffe, J.V. River flow forecasting through conceptual models part I—A discussion of principles. J. Hydrol.
**1970**, 10, 282–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Gupta, H.V.; Sorooshian, S.; Yapo, P.O. Status of automatic calibration for hydrologic models: Comparison with multilevel expert calibration. J. Hydrol. Eng.
**1999**, 4, 135–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Bridge, P.D.; Sawilowsky, S.S. Increasing physicians’ awareness of the impact of statistics on research outcomes: Comparative power of the t-test and Wilcoxon rank-sum test in small samples applied research. J. Clin. Epidemiol.
**1999**, 52, 229–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Levene, H. Robust tests for equality of variances. In Contributions to Probability and Statistics. Essays in Honor of Harold Hotelling; Stanford University Press: Redwood City, CA, USA, 1961; pp. 279–292. [Google Scholar]
- Kolmogorov, A. Sulla determinazione empirica di una lgge di distribuzione. Inst. Ital. Attuari, Giorn.
**1933**, 4, 83–91. [Google Scholar] - Razali, N.M.; Wah, Y.B. Power comparisons of shapiro-wilk, kolmogorov-smirnov, lilliefors and anderson-darling tests. J. Stat. Model. Anal.
**2011**, 2, 21–33. [Google Scholar] - Farmer, W.H.; Over, T.M.; Kiang, J.E. Bias correction of simulated historical daily streamflow at ungauged locations by using independently estimated flow duration curves. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.
**2018**, 22, 5741–5758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Sanchez Lozano, J.; Romero Bustamante, G.; Hales, R.; Nelson, E.J.; Williams, G.P.; Ames, D.P.; Jones, N.L. A Streamflow Bias Correction and Performance Evaluation Web Application for GEOGloWS ECMWF Streamflow Services. Hydrology
**2021**, 8, 71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Fan, F.M.; Collischonn, W.; Quiroz, K.; Sorribas, M.; Buarque, D.; Siqueira, V. Flood forecasting on the Tocantins River using ensemble rainfall forecasts and real-time satellite rainfall estimates. J. Flood Risk Manag.
**2016**, 9, 278–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - ANA. Plano Estratégico de Recursos Hídricos da Bacia Hidrográfica dos Rios Tocantins e Araguaia: Relatório e Síntese; Agência Nacional de Águas: Brasília, Brazil, 2009; p. 256. [Google Scholar]
- Alvares, C.A.; Stape, J.L.; Sentelhas, P.C.; Gonçalves, J.d.M.; Sparovek, G. Köppen’s climate classification map for Brazil. Meteorol. Z.
**2013**, 22, 711–728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Junqueira, R.; Viola, M.R.; de Mello, C.R.; Vieira-Filho, M.; Alves, M.V.; Amorim, J.d.S. Drought severity indexes for the Tocantins River Basin, Brazil. Theor. Appl. Climatol.
**2020**, 141, 465–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - McNaughton, K.; Jarvis, P. Using the Penman-Monteith equation predictively. Agric. Water Manag.
**1984**, 8, 263–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

**Figure 6.**Schematic diagram of linear reservoirs used by the MGB-IPH model. Adapted from: [55].

**Figure 9.**Boxplots of deterministic metrics for the original and corrected simulated data for the vaildation period.

**Figure 10.**Hydrographs for the validation stage comparing the observed and the simulated streamflows by different hydrological models at the Estreito UHE.

**Figure 11.**Curves describing the duration of daily streamflow in the Tocantins river basin for the validation period (2005–2010).

**Figure 12.**Statistical tests of each hydrological model in the validation stage. The horizontal line indicates the significance level $\alpha =0.05$.

**Figure 13.**Violin plot describing the low, median, and high flows simulated in the Tocantins river basin by multiple hydrological models. Calibration period.

**Figure 14.**Violin plot describing the low, median, and high flows simulated in the Tocantins river basin by multiple hydrological models. Validation period.

Model | Calibrated Parameters | Conceptual Storage | Type of Flows | Input Data | Routing Method |
---|---|---|---|---|---|

GR4J | 4 | Production soil storage | Fast flow | Precipitaiton | Triangular weighting function |

Routing soil storage | Slow flow | PET | |||

HYMOD | 5 | Soil moisture layer | Surface flow | Precipitation | Triangular weighting function |

Quick flow reservoirs | Groundwater flow | PET | |||

Slow Flow Reservoir | |||||

HBV | 11 | Soil moisture layer | Surface flow | Precipitaiton | Triangular weighting function |

Upper zone storage | Base flow | Temperature | |||

Lower zone storage | Long-term monthly temperature | ||||

Long-term monthly PET | |||||

SMAP | 11 | Upper soil reservoir | Surface flow | Precipitation | Triangular weighting function |

Second upper soil reservoir | Base flow | PET | |||

Lower soil reservoir | |||||

Groundwater storage | |||||

MGB-IPH | 27 | Soil layers | Surface runoff | Digital Elevation Model (DEM) | Muskingum-Cunge |

Surface flow reservoir | Subsurface flow | Precipitation | |||

Interflow reservoir | Base flow | Climate variables | |||

Groundwater reservoir | Hydrological response units (GRU) |

Parameter | Units | Limits | Description |
---|---|---|---|

${C}_{max}$ | mm | 50 to 3000 | Maximum moisture (storage in the soil layer) |

${\beta}_{exp}$ | - | 0 to 2 | Distribution of soil moisture store |

$\alpha $ | - | 0.2 to 0.99 | Factor of flow distribution between quick and slow reservoirs |

${K}_{q}$ | day | 0.5 to 1.2 | Quick response reservoir residence time |

${K}_{s}$ | day | 0.001 to 0.5 | Slow response reservoir residence time |

Parameter | Units | Limits | Description |
---|---|---|---|

${X}_{1}$ | mm | 50 to 3000 | Maximum capacity of the production store |

${X}_{2}$ | mm/day | −10 to 10 | Inter-catchment exchange coefficient |

${X}_{3}$ | mm | 10 to 200 | Maximum capacity of the routing store |

${X}_{4}$ | mm | 0.7 to 10 | Base time of the unit hydrograph |

Parameter | Units | Limits | Description |
---|---|---|---|

H | mm | 0 to 500 | Representative height for the overflow in the R${}_{sup}$ reservoir |

$H1$ | mm | 0 to 500 | Representative height for the second flow in the R${}_{sup}$ reservoir |

$Capc$ | % | 0 to 200 | Soil field capacity |

$Crec$ | % | 0 to 50 | Parameter that regulates the underground recharge |

$K1t$ | day | 0 to 10 | Overflow recession coefficient in the R${}_{sup}$ reservoir |

$K2t$ | day | 0 to 10 | First flow recession coefficient in the R${}_{sup}$ reservoir |

$K2t2$ | day | 0 to 10 | Second flow recession coefficient in the R${}_{sup}$ reservoir |

$K3t$ | day | 0 to 10 | Flow recession coefficient in the R${}_{sup2}$ reservoir |

$Kkt$ | day | 0 to 10 | Base streamfow recession coefficient in the R${}_{sub}$ reservoir |

$Str$ | mm | 0 to 500 | Maximum volume stored in the soil reservoir |

$Ecof$ | - | 0 to 1.5 | Adjustment coefficient of potential evapotranspiration |

${P}_{BASMAX}$ | day | 1 to 10 | Routing time |

Parameter | Units | Limits | Description |
---|---|---|---|

$TT$ | °C | 0 | Temperature threshold for snowmelt |

$DD$ | mm°C${}^{-1}$ | 2 to 15 | Degree-day factor |

$FC$ | mm | 100 to 300 | Maximum soil storage capacity |

$\beta $ | - | 0 to 4 | Distribution of soil moisture sotre |

C | °C${}^{-1}$ | 0 to 0.4 | Temperature correction factor |

${K}_{0}$ | day${}^{-1}$ | 0.01 to 0.2 | Quick response coefficient (upper deposit) |

L | mm | 0 to 5 | Quick runoff response threshold |

${K}_{1}$ | day${}^{-1}$ | 0.01 to 0.1 | Slow reponse coefficient (upper deposit) |

${K}_{2}$ | day${}^{-1}$ | 0.01 to 0.1 | Lower deposit response coefficient |

${K}_{p}$ | day${}^{-1}$ | 0.01 to 0.1 | Maximum flow for percolation coefficient |

$PWP$ | mm | 90 to 200 | Soil Permanent Wilting Point |

${P}_{BASMAX}$ | day | 1 to 10 | Routing time |

**Table 6.**Descriptive statistics of observed daily streamflow and precipitation for the period 2010–2019.

UHE | Total Drainage Area (km${}^{2}$) | Incremental Total Area (km${}^{2}$) | Total Annual Rainfall (mm) | Daily Streamflow (m${}^{3}$/s) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

Mean | SD | CV | Max | Min | ||||

Serra da Mesa | 50,678 | 50,678 | 1324 | 529 | 528 | 99 | 4690 | 53 |

Cana Brava | 57,979 | 7301 | 1454 | 585 | 581 | 99 | 4840 | 70 |

Sao Salvador | 63,695 | 5716 | 1627 | 640 | 635 | 99 | 4970 | 79 |

Peixe Angical | 126,995 | 63,300 | 1137 | 1071 | 1093 | 102 | 8210 | 127 |

Lajeado | 183,608 | 56,613 | 1441 | 1526 | 1567 | 102 | 11,700 | 173 |

Estreito | 285,778 | 102,170 | 1652 | 2750 | 2395 | 87 | 14,600 | 269 |

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |

© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## Share and Cite

**MDPI and ACS Style**

Ávila, L.; Silveira, R.; Campos, A.; Rogiski, N.; Gonçalves, J.; Scortegagna, A.; Freita, C.; Aver, C.; Fan, F.
Comparative Evaluation of Five Hydrological Models in a Large-Scale and Tropical River Basin. *Water* **2022**, *14*, 3013.
https://doi.org/10.3390/w14193013

**AMA Style**

Ávila L, Silveira R, Campos A, Rogiski N, Gonçalves J, Scortegagna A, Freita C, Aver C, Fan F.
Comparative Evaluation of Five Hydrological Models in a Large-Scale and Tropical River Basin. *Water*. 2022; 14(19):3013.
https://doi.org/10.3390/w14193013

**Chicago/Turabian Style**

Ávila, Leandro, Reinaldo Silveira, André Campos, Nathalli Rogiski, José Gonçalves, Arlan Scortegagna, Camila Freita, Cássia Aver, and Fernando Fan.
2022. "Comparative Evaluation of Five Hydrological Models in a Large-Scale and Tropical River Basin" *Water* 14, no. 19: 3013.
https://doi.org/10.3390/w14193013