A Review of Hydrological Models Applied in the Permafrost-Dominated Arctic Region
The Arctic region is the most sensitive region to climate change. Hydrological models are fundamental tools for climate change impact assessment. However, due to the extreme weather conditions, specific hydrological process, and data acquisition challenges in the Arctic, it is crucial to select suit...
Published in: | Geosciences |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , |
Format: | Article in Journal/Newspaper |
Language: | English |
Published: |
MDPI
2020
|
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | https://hdl.handle.net/10037/19555 https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences10100401 |
id |
ftunivtroemsoe:oai:munin.uit.no:10037/19555 |
---|---|
record_format |
openpolar |
spelling |
ftunivtroemsoe:oai:munin.uit.no:10037/19555 2023-05-15T14:23:02+02:00 A Review of Hydrological Models Applied in the Permafrost-Dominated Arctic Region Bui, Minh Tuan Lu, Jinmei Nie, Linmei 2020-10-06 https://hdl.handle.net/10037/19555 https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences10100401 eng eng MDPI Bui, M.T. (2022). Hydrological Modelling and Climate Change Impact Assessment on Future Floods in the Norwegian Arctic Catchments. (Doctoral thesis). https://hdl.handle.net/10037/26021 Geosciences Bui M T, Lu J, Nie L. A Review of Hydrological Models Applied in the Permafrost-Dominated Arctic Region. Geosciences. 2020;10(10):1-27 FRIDAID 1837738 doi:10.3390/geosciences10100401 2076-3263 https://hdl.handle.net/10037/19555 openAccess Copyright 2020 The Author(s) VDP::Mathematics and natural science: 400::Geosciences: 450::Hydrology: 454 VDP::Matematikk og Naturvitenskap: 400::Geofag: 450::Hydrologi: 454 Journal article Tidsskriftartikkel Peer reviewed publishedVersion 2020 ftunivtroemsoe https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences10100401 2022-08-10T22:59:59Z The Arctic region is the most sensitive region to climate change. Hydrological models are fundamental tools for climate change impact assessment. However, due to the extreme weather conditions, specific hydrological process, and data acquisition challenges in the Arctic, it is crucial to select suitable hydrological model(s) for this region. In this paper, a comprehensive review and comparison of different models is conducted based on recently available studies. The functionality, limitations, and suitability of the potential hydrological models for the Arctic hydrological process are analyzed, including: (1) The surface hydrological models Topoflow, DMHS (deterministic modeling hydrological system), HBV (Hydrologiska Byråns Vattenbalansavdelning), SWAT (soil and water assessment tool), WaSiM (water balance simulation model), ECOMAG (ecological model for applied geophysics), and CRHM (cold regions hydrological model); and (2) the cryo-hydrogeological models ATS (arctic terrestrial simulator), CryoGrid 3, GEOtop, SUTRA-ICE (ice variant of the existing saturated/unsaturated transport model), and PFLOTRAN-ICE (ice variant of the existing massively parallel subsurface flow and reactive transport model). The review finds that Topoflow, HBV, SWAT, ECOMAG, and CRHM are suitable for studying surface hydrology rather than other processes in permafrost environments, whereas DMHS, WaSiM, and the cryo-hydrogeological models have higher capacities for subsurface hydrology, since they take into account the three phase changes of water in the near-surface soil. Of the cryo-hydrogeological models reviewed here, GEOtop, SUTRA-ICE, and PFLOTRAN-ICE are found to be suitable for small-scale catchments, whereas ATS and CryoGrid 3 are potentially suitable for large-scale catchments. Especially, ATS and GEOtop are the first tools that couple surface/subsurface permafrost thermal hydrology. If the accuracy of simulating the active layer dynamics is targeted, DMHS, ATS, GEOtop, and PFLOTRAN-ICE are potential tools compared to the other ... Article in Journal/Newspaper Arctic Arctic Climate change Ice permafrost University of Tromsø: Munin Open Research Archive Arctic Geosciences 10 10 401 |
institution |
Open Polar |
collection |
University of Tromsø: Munin Open Research Archive |
op_collection_id |
ftunivtroemsoe |
language |
English |
topic |
VDP::Mathematics and natural science: 400::Geosciences: 450::Hydrology: 454 VDP::Matematikk og Naturvitenskap: 400::Geofag: 450::Hydrologi: 454 |
spellingShingle |
VDP::Mathematics and natural science: 400::Geosciences: 450::Hydrology: 454 VDP::Matematikk og Naturvitenskap: 400::Geofag: 450::Hydrologi: 454 Bui, Minh Tuan Lu, Jinmei Nie, Linmei A Review of Hydrological Models Applied in the Permafrost-Dominated Arctic Region |
topic_facet |
VDP::Mathematics and natural science: 400::Geosciences: 450::Hydrology: 454 VDP::Matematikk og Naturvitenskap: 400::Geofag: 450::Hydrologi: 454 |
description |
The Arctic region is the most sensitive region to climate change. Hydrological models are fundamental tools for climate change impact assessment. However, due to the extreme weather conditions, specific hydrological process, and data acquisition challenges in the Arctic, it is crucial to select suitable hydrological model(s) for this region. In this paper, a comprehensive review and comparison of different models is conducted based on recently available studies. The functionality, limitations, and suitability of the potential hydrological models for the Arctic hydrological process are analyzed, including: (1) The surface hydrological models Topoflow, DMHS (deterministic modeling hydrological system), HBV (Hydrologiska Byråns Vattenbalansavdelning), SWAT (soil and water assessment tool), WaSiM (water balance simulation model), ECOMAG (ecological model for applied geophysics), and CRHM (cold regions hydrological model); and (2) the cryo-hydrogeological models ATS (arctic terrestrial simulator), CryoGrid 3, GEOtop, SUTRA-ICE (ice variant of the existing saturated/unsaturated transport model), and PFLOTRAN-ICE (ice variant of the existing massively parallel subsurface flow and reactive transport model). The review finds that Topoflow, HBV, SWAT, ECOMAG, and CRHM are suitable for studying surface hydrology rather than other processes in permafrost environments, whereas DMHS, WaSiM, and the cryo-hydrogeological models have higher capacities for subsurface hydrology, since they take into account the three phase changes of water in the near-surface soil. Of the cryo-hydrogeological models reviewed here, GEOtop, SUTRA-ICE, and PFLOTRAN-ICE are found to be suitable for small-scale catchments, whereas ATS and CryoGrid 3 are potentially suitable for large-scale catchments. Especially, ATS and GEOtop are the first tools that couple surface/subsurface permafrost thermal hydrology. If the accuracy of simulating the active layer dynamics is targeted, DMHS, ATS, GEOtop, and PFLOTRAN-ICE are potential tools compared to the other ... |
format |
Article in Journal/Newspaper |
author |
Bui, Minh Tuan Lu, Jinmei Nie, Linmei |
author_facet |
Bui, Minh Tuan Lu, Jinmei Nie, Linmei |
author_sort |
Bui, Minh Tuan |
title |
A Review of Hydrological Models Applied in the Permafrost-Dominated Arctic Region |
title_short |
A Review of Hydrological Models Applied in the Permafrost-Dominated Arctic Region |
title_full |
A Review of Hydrological Models Applied in the Permafrost-Dominated Arctic Region |
title_fullStr |
A Review of Hydrological Models Applied in the Permafrost-Dominated Arctic Region |
title_full_unstemmed |
A Review of Hydrological Models Applied in the Permafrost-Dominated Arctic Region |
title_sort |
review of hydrological models applied in the permafrost-dominated arctic region |
publisher |
MDPI |
publishDate |
2020 |
url |
https://hdl.handle.net/10037/19555 https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences10100401 |
geographic |
Arctic |
geographic_facet |
Arctic |
genre |
Arctic Arctic Climate change Ice permafrost |
genre_facet |
Arctic Arctic Climate change Ice permafrost |
op_relation |
Bui, M.T. (2022). Hydrological Modelling and Climate Change Impact Assessment on Future Floods in the Norwegian Arctic Catchments. (Doctoral thesis). https://hdl.handle.net/10037/26021 Geosciences Bui M T, Lu J, Nie L. A Review of Hydrological Models Applied in the Permafrost-Dominated Arctic Region. Geosciences. 2020;10(10):1-27 FRIDAID 1837738 doi:10.3390/geosciences10100401 2076-3263 https://hdl.handle.net/10037/19555 |
op_rights |
openAccess Copyright 2020 The Author(s) |
op_doi |
https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences10100401 |
container_title |
Geosciences |
container_volume |
10 |
container_issue |
10 |
container_start_page |
401 |
_version_ |
1766295518688837632 |