<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
<oai_dc:dc xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:oai_dc="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd">
  <dc:contributor>Adel E. Haj</dc:contributor>
  <dc:contributor>T.A. Fontaine</dc:contributor>
  <dc:creator>D. R. Chalise</dc:creator>
  <dc:date>2018</dc:date>
  <dc:description>&lt;div class="NLM_sec NLM_sec_level_1 hlFld-Abstract"&gt;&lt;p&gt;The hydrological simulation program Fortran (&lt;i&gt;HSPF&lt;/i&gt;) [&lt;i&gt;Hydrological Simulation Program Fortran version 12.2&lt;/i&gt;&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/span&gt;(Computer software). USEPA, Washington, DC] and the precipitation runoff modeling system (&lt;i&gt;PRMS&lt;/i&gt;) [&lt;i&gt;Precipitation Runoff Modeling System version 4.0&lt;/i&gt;&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/span&gt;(Computer software). USGS, Reston, VA] models are semidistributed, deterministic hydrological tools for simulating the impacts of precipitation, land use, and climate on basin hydrology and streamflow. Both models have been applied independently to many watersheds across the United States. This paper reports the statistical results assessing various temporal (daily, monthly, and annual) and spatial (small versus large watershed) scale biases in&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;i&gt;HSPF&lt;/i&gt;&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/span&gt;and&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;i&gt;PRMS&lt;/i&gt;&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/span&gt;simulations using two watersheds in the Black Hills, South Dakota. The Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE), Pearson correlation coefficient (&lt;span class="equationTd"&gt;&lt;span id="MathJax-Element-1-Frame" class="MathJax" data-mathml="&lt;math xmlns=&amp;quot;http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML&amp;quot; display=&amp;quot;inline&amp;quot; overflow=&amp;quot;scroll&amp;quot;&gt;&lt;mrow&gt;&lt;mi&gt;r&lt;/mi&gt;&lt;/mrow&gt;&lt;/math&gt;"&gt;&lt;span id="MathJax-Span-1" class="math"&gt;&lt;span&gt;&lt;span id="MathJax-Span-2" class="mrow"&gt;&lt;span id="MathJax-Span-3" class="mrow"&gt;&lt;span id="MathJax-Span-4" class="mi"&gt;r&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span class="MJX_Assistive_MathML"&gt;r&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;), and coefficient of determination (&lt;span class="equationTd"&gt;&lt;span id="MathJax-Element-2-Frame" class="MathJax" data-mathml="&lt;math xmlns=&amp;quot;http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML&amp;quot; display=&amp;quot;inline&amp;quot; overflow=&amp;quot;scroll&amp;quot;&gt;&lt;mrow&gt;&lt;msup&gt;&lt;mrow&gt;&lt;mi&gt;R&lt;/mi&gt;&lt;/mrow&gt;&lt;mrow&gt;&lt;mn&gt;2&lt;/mn&gt;&lt;/mrow&gt;&lt;/msup&gt;&lt;/mrow&gt;&lt;/math&gt;"&gt;&lt;span id="MathJax-Span-5" class="math"&gt;&lt;span&gt;&lt;span id="MathJax-Span-6" class="mrow"&gt;&lt;span id="MathJax-Span-7" class="mrow"&gt;&lt;span id="MathJax-Span-8" class="msup"&gt;&lt;span id="MathJax-Span-9" class="mrow"&gt;&lt;span id="MathJax-Span-10" class="mi"&gt;R&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span id="MathJax-Span-11" class="mrow"&gt;&lt;span id="MathJax-Span-12" class="mn"&gt;2&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span class="MJX_Assistive_MathML"&gt;R2&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;) statistics for the daily, monthly, and annual flows were used to evaluate the models’ performance. Results from the&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;i&gt;HSPF&lt;/i&gt;&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/span&gt;models showed that the&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;i&gt;HSPF&lt;/i&gt;&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/span&gt;consistently simulated the annual flows for both large and small basins better than the monthly and daily flows, and the simulated flows for the small watershed better than flows for the large watershed. In comparison, the&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;i&gt;PRMS&lt;/i&gt;&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/span&gt;model results show that the&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;i&gt;PRMS&lt;/i&gt;&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/span&gt;simulated the monthly flows for both the large and small watersheds better than the daily and annual flows, and the range of statistical error in the&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;i&gt;PRMS&lt;/i&gt;&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/span&gt;models was greater than that in the&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;i&gt;HSPF&lt;/i&gt;&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/span&gt;models. Moreover, it can be concluded that the statistical error in the&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;i&gt;HSPF&lt;/i&gt;&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/span&gt;and the&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;i&gt;PRMS&lt;/i&gt;daily, monthly, and annual flow estimates for watersheds in the Black Hills was influenced by both temporal and spatial scale variability.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</dc:description>
  <dc:format>application/pdf</dc:format>
  <dc:identifier>10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0001596</dc:identifier>
  <dc:language>en</dc:language>
  <dc:publisher>ASCE</dc:publisher>
  <dc:title>Comparison of HSPF and PRMS model simulated flows using different temporal and spatial scales in the Black Hills, South Dakota</dc:title>
  <dc:type>article</dc:type>
</oai_dc:dc>