DECLARATION 2: PUBLICATIONS
4. PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT OF THE IMPROVED CONTINUOUS
4.4 Catchments Used for Verification
4.4.2 Data availability, collection and processing
Table 4.2 ACRU soils input information obtained for each verification catchment from the national soils map developed by Schulze and Horan (2008)
Catchments (kmArea 2) DEPAHO (m) (m.mWP1 -1) (m.mFC1 -1) (m.mPO1 -1) ABRESP/BFRESP DEPBHO (m) (m.mWP2 -1) (m.mFC2 -1) (m.mPO2 -1) Cedara (U2H020) 0.26 0.30 0.172 0.275 0.406 0.37 0.67 0.217 0.333 0.427 DeHoek /
Ntabamhlope
(V7H003) 0.52 0.30 0.150 0.240 0.422 0.42 0.63 0.208 0.292 0.413 Jonkershoek -
Lambrechtsbos B
(G2H010) 0.73 0.26 0.115 0.201 0.445 0.46 0.12 0.121 0.211 0.443 Cathedral Peak IV
(V1H005) 0.98 0.30 0.134 0.224 0.439 0.39 0.55 0.156 0.248 0.410 DeHoek /
Ntabamhlope
(V1H015) 1.04 0.30 0.137 0.223 0.433 0.44 0.72 0.197 0.268 0.406 Cedara (U2H018) 1.31 0.30 0.170 0.270 0.410 0.37 0.62 0.212 0.324 0.425 Zululand
(W1H016) 3.30 0.30 0.120 0.212 0.462 0.36 0.12 0.106 0.205 0.439 X2H026 13.82 0.30 0.173 0.280 0.399 0.38 0.67 0.199 0.317 0.425 A9H006 16.00 0.30 0.169 0.277 0.404 0.38 0.85 0.212 0.338 0.431 V1H032 67.80 0.30 0.144 0.233 0.432 0.38 0.36 0.177 0.265 0.416
X2H027 77.16 0.30 0.174 0.282 0.398 0.37 0.60 0.196 0.314 0.425
Table 4.3 Source of data, record lengths and modelling periods for verification catchments
Catchments Cedara (U2H020)
DeHoek / Ntabamhlope
(V7H003)
Jonkershoek - Lambrechtsbos B
(G2H010)
Cathedral Peak IV (V1H005)
DeHoek / Ntabamhlope
(V1H015)
Cedara
(U2H018) Zululand
(W1H016) X2H026 A9H006 V1H032 X2H027
Data Source
Streamflow CWRR CWRR CSIR (Mr A Chapman)
and SAEON CSIR (Mr A
Chapman) CWRR CWRR CWRR DWS DWS DWS DWS
Record Length 1978 - 1995 1970 - 1995 1947 - 2006 1950 - 1992 1965 - 1993 1977 - 1995 1977 - 1986 1967 - 1991 1962 - 2018 1974 - 1993 1967 - 1991
Data Source and ID Daily Rainfall
CWRR - C191 infilled using C201 aggregated
to daily
CWRR - N18 infilled using n14
aggregated to daily
SAEON - 15A
aggregated to daily CWRR / CSIR - C4
CWRR - N11 infilled using N18 aggregated to daily
CWRR - C182 infilled using
C191 aggregated to
daily
CWRR - 304470 infilled using
304530 aggregated to
daily
CWRR (Lynch, 2003)
- SAWS station 0555137 W
CWRR (Lynch, 2003)
- SAWS station 0723513 W
CWRR (Lynch, 2003) - SAWS station 0298818
W
CWRR (Lynch, 2003)
- SAWS station 0555137 W Period of Record 1977 - 1996 1977 - 1995 1940 - 2008 1949 - 1987 1977 - 1993 1977 - 1995 1976 - 1986 1950 - 1999 1965 - 1996 1950 - 1999 1950 - 1999 Data Source and
ID Hourly Rainfall and (Verification / Infilling Station)
CWRR - C191 infilled using Raingauge C201
CWRR - N18 infilled using Raingauge N14
SAEON - 15A (SAWS
station 0021809 W) SAEON -
C4_CD (C4) CWRR - N11 infilled using N18
CWRR - C182 infilled using
C191
CWRR - 304470 infilled using
304530
CWRR Mokobulaan
Raingauge 3A N/A N/A CWRR
Mokobulaan Raingauge 3A
Record Length hourly (Record Length Verification / Infilling Station)
1977 – 1996
(1977 - 1996) 1977 – 1995
(1977 - 1996) 1940-2008
(1950 - 1999) 1972 – 1979
(1949 - 1987) 1977 – 1993
(1977 - 1995) 1977 – 1995
(1977 - 1996) 1976 – 1986
(1976 - 1986) 1957 - 1984 - - 1957 - 1984
Data Source Daily Tmin &
Tmax CWRR (Schulze and Maharaj, 2004)
Record Length of Daily Tmin &
Tmax 1950 - 1999
Modelling Period
(Years) 1978 – 1995
(17) 1977 – 1995
(18) 1972 – 1994
(22) 1949 – 1981
(32) 1979 – 1993
(14) 1977 – 1995
(18) 1977 – 1986
(9) 1967 – 1991
(24) 1965 – 1979
(14) 1974 – 1993
(19) 1967 – 1991 (24)
Notes on Selected Modelling Period
Short periods of missing streamflow data
in 1980, 1982, 1983, 1992 and
1993.
Large gap in observed streamflow record
with no data for the period 1973 -
1976.
Afforested to 82% Pinus radiata in 1964, modelled from 1972 -
1994, i.e. when trees were well established
and therefore more stable and consistent land cover conditions.
Daily rainfall data missing
in 1982, 1983, 1986
and 1987 therefore only
modelled up to 1981.
Large gap in observed streamflow record with no data for the period 1968 - 1978.
Short periods of missing streamflow data
in 1983, 1992, 1993, 1994 and
1995.
Short period of missing streamflow data
between 1982 - 1983.
Hourly rainfall data not used for this chapter.
Dam built in catchment in approximately
1980 therefore only
modelled to 1979.
Single driver rainfall station used, no other reliable rainfall
stations considerably
close to the catchment.
Hourly rainfall data not used for this chapter.
Single driver rainfall station
used (same as that used for
X2H026).
* CWRR - Centre for Water Resources Research; CSIR - Council for Scientific and Industrial Research; DWS - Department of Water and Sanitation; SAEON - South African Environmental Observation Network; SAWS - South African Weather
Table 4.4 Errors identified in the daily rainfall record for the Cathedral Peak IV Catchment
Date Daily Raingauge (mm) Autographic Data (mm)
1974/02/22 0.00 38.32
1974/02/23 81.00 47.14
Total 81.00 85.46
1976/03/03 22.00 60.08
1976/03/04 91.30 57.32
Total 113.30 117.40
1976/03/07 9.70 45.41
1976/03/08 73.40 44.82
Total 83.10 90.22
This may have occurred due to various reasons such as the inability to access the site on one of the days, staff away over weekends and general human error. These errors obviously have a significant influence on the simulated results, since rainfall is the primary driver of both streamflow volume and peak discharge response. In terms of short duration sub-daily rainfall records, the primary source of error is missing data due to instrument malfunction, which was often not flagged, i.e. with zero values in the record, but with the daily raingauges indicating significant rainfall. Occasionally, malfunction occurs over a certain period within the day, and therefore it is common to find daily totals from short duration raingauges being lower than those of the nearby daily rainfall stations (Smithers and Schulze, 2000). It is also important to note that there is a general lack of availability of observed sub-daily rainfall data, both spatially and in terms of record length, which limited the investigations that could be performed for certain catchments, i.e. where sub-daily rainfall data is required.
The errors in streamflow data include missing data records and over-topping of gauging weirs, i.e. rating table exceedance. Every effort was made to identify and correct such errors, however, this is a tedious task and can only be performed if adequate supplemental data is available, therefore inevitably there are potentially still some errors in the observed data, and which should be taken into account when assessing the simulated results. Significant time was spent on this critical step of data quality control, since accurate input data are essential when verifying a model and it is important to acknowledge that there is some uncertainty in the observed input and validation data. Furthermore, infilling and error correction, although an improvement, adds an additional level of uncertainty.
Obtaining consistent streamflow and rainfall data for long periods without any missing data was a significant challenge. In addition, there are periods with inconsistent rainfall and runoff data as a consequence of phasing issues, i.e. where rainfall and streamflow records are out of phase. For example, streamflow is recorded but with no rainfall on the same day, or rainfall is recorded for the preceding or subsequent day with no corresponding streamflow. Furthermore, in certain cases major land cover changes have occurred, such as for Catchment A9H006, where a dam was built in the catchment in approximately 1980. This was identified and verified using Google Earth images and therefore, for consistency, the modelling period was reduced to end in 1979. These challenges explain why only 11 catchments were used in the verification of the CSM system developed, and why in many cases relatively short modelling periods were used, i.e. from a design flood estimation perspective. Data issues, however, are and continue to be a major concern in South Africa with declines in monitoring networks highlighted by Wessels and Rooseboom (2009), Pitman (2011) and Pegram et al. (2016), and is a trend that is currently continuing. The sources of the data used are listed in Table 4.3. The record length available for each database is also provided, as well as the final modelling period, with explanation of why the final modelling period was selected.
In ACRU several methods have been developed and are available to estimate reference potential evaporation (Schulze, 1995). The method selected in this study was the Hargreaves and Samani (1985) equation which requires daily maximum and minimum temperature data only. This method was selected as a national database of high quality temperature data, developed by Schulze and Maharaj (2004), and is available from the CWRR.
The primary streamflow data, once formatted and error checked, as mentioned above, was processed as follows. A Python script was developed to read in the primary flow data, and calculate daily streamflow volumes using integration, i.e. calculated from 08:00 - 08:00 periods to be consistent with the daily rainfall data which are recorded for this period in South Africa.
The programme simultaneously extracted the daily peak discharges for the same period from the primary flow data.
Where hourly rainfall data was used and aggregated to daily values (08:00 – 08:00), i.e. for use as the daily rainfall input into ACRU, the daily totals were compared to daily rainfall values from the closest daily rainfall station with high quality data. This included scatter plots as well
as cumulative plots and visual inspections to identify possible errors or missing data in the hourly records. Where missing data were identified, rainfall was infilled using data from the selected daily station closest to the recording rainfall station. For several of the small research catchments, poor correlation between the daily total accumulated from the hourly rainfall station and the closest daily rainfall station, often several kilometers away, resulted in the use of other nearby hourly rainfall stations being used to infill a selected driver hourly rainfall station for each catchment, i.e. a single rainfall station with adequate data and most representative of the catchment rainfall. Since the hourly rainfall stations used to perform the infilling were very close to one another, a direct copy of the data from the nearby station selected for infilling was used to infill the data missing in the driver rainfall station selected. A regression analysis between the two stations was not used to adjust the infilled values since the regression only gives the general trend, whereas the values fluctuate around this trend on a day- to-day basis. Due to the general similarity in the observed data from these stations it was considered preferable to use the data directly from the station used for infilling as it gives the most realistic rainfall volume on each particular day, and eliminates any additional uncertainty associated with adjusting real values based on general trends.