Abstract
The first step in developing travel time and water quality models in streams is to correctly model solute transport mechanisms. In this paper a comparison between two solute transport models is performed. The parameters of the Transient Storage model (TS) and the Aggregated Dead Zone model (ADZ) are estimated using data of thirty seven tracer experiments carried out under different discharges in five mountain streams of Colombian Los Andes. Calibration is performed with the generalized uncertainty estimation method (GLUE) based on Monte-Carlo simulations. Aspects of model parameters identifiability and model parsimony are analyzed and discussed. The TS model with four parameters shows excellent results during calibration but the model parameters present high interaction and poor identifiability. The ADZ model with two independent and clearly identifiable parameters gives sufficiently precise calibration results. As a conclusion, it is stated that the ADZ model with only two parameters is a parsimonious model that is able to represent solute transport mechanisms of advection and longitudinal dispersion in the studied mountain streams. A simple model parameter estimation methodology as a function of discharge is proposed in this work to be used in prediction mode of travel time and solute transport applications along mountain streams.
Similar content being viewed by others
Abbreviations
- TS:
-
Transient Storage model
- ADZ:
-
Aggregated Dead Zone model
- GLUE:
-
Generalized Likelihood Uncertainty Estimation methodology
- MCAT:
-
Monte-Carlo Analysis Toolbox
- ADE:
-
Advection Dispersion Equation
References
Bencala KE, Walters RA (1983) Simulation of solute transport in a mountain pool-and-riffle stream: a transient storage model. Water Resour Res 19(3): 718–724
Beer T, Young PC (1983) Longitudinal dispersion in natural streams. ASCE J Environ Eng 109(5): 1049–1067
Lees MJ, Camacho LA, Chapra SC (2000) On the relationship of transient-storage and aggregated dead zone models of longitudinal solute transport in streams. Water Resour Res 36(1): 213–224
Meier WK, Reichert PJ (2005) Mountain streams—modeling hydraulics and substance transport. J Environ Eng 131(2): 252–261
Young PC, Wallis SG (1993) Solute transport and dispersion in channels. In: Beven KJ, Kirby MJ(eds) Channel network hydrology. Wiley, Chichester, pp 129–174
Beven KJ, Binley A (1992) The future of distributed models: model calibration and uncertainty prediction. Hydrol Process 6: 279–298
Wagener T, Lees MJ, Wheater HS (2004) A toolkit for the development and application of parsimonious hydrological models. In: Singh VP, Frevert D(eds) Mathematical models of large watershed hydrology. Wat Res Pub, , pp 87–136
Lees MJ, Camacho LA (2000) Modelling solute transport in rivers under unsteady flow conditions—an integrated velocity conceptualisation. British Hydrological Society, 7th national hydrology symposium. Newcastle, Sept 4–6, pp 3.21–3.29
Wagner BJ, Harvey JW (1997) Experimental design for estimating parameters of rate-limited mass transfer: Analysis of stream tracer studies. Water Resour Res 33(7): 1731–1741
Wagener T, Camacho LA, Wheater H (2002) Dynamic identifiability analysis of the transient storage model for solute transport in rivers. J Hydroinform 04.3: 199–211
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Camacho, L.A., González, R.A. Calibration and predictive ability analysis of longitudinal solute transport models in mountain streams. Environ Fluid Mech 8, 597–604 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10652-008-9109-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10652-008-9109-0