J. Basic. Appl. Sci. Res.

, 3(2)463-472, 2013 ISSN 2090-4304

Journal of Basic and Applied
© 2013, TextRoad Publication
Scientific Research
www.textroad.com

Evaluating GR2M Model in Some Small Watersheds of Iran

(Case Study Gilan and Mazandaran Provinces)
Maryam Zolfaghari1, Mohamad Mahdavi2, Ali Rezaei3, Ali Salajegheh4
1
Student of PhD., Department of Watershed Management, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University,
Tehran, Iran
2,4
Department of Natural Resources, Tehran University, Karaj, Iran
3
Agriculture and Natural Resources Research Centre, Zanjan, Iran

ABSTRACT

Rainfall-runoff modeling is a part of the Hydrological Sciences that is concerned with the hydrological cycle and
aims at producing tools usable on different fields.
.One of problems in small watersheds in Iran is not having enough and suitable hydrometric stations that resulted in
lacking enough and suitable data for hydrological researches for example in obtaining discharge. In this research we
examined a mathematical model is named GR2M for simulation of monthly runoff depth. 17 catchments were
selected in Mazandaran and Gilan provinces. Areas of all selected catchments are less than 110km . At every
selected catchment, depth of precipitation, runoff and potential evapotranspiration (calculated by Cropwat software,
based on penman mantis method) estimated for each month. Sometimes because of shifting partial of winter snow
melt runoff to spring season, the monthly hydrometer data was divided to total and sectional data series. After
calibrating the model, Nash-Sutcliffe coefficients using all data resulted %9.67 While using the partial of data series
(by runoff coefficient equal and less than 1) Nash-Sutcliffe coefficient was %27.05. It means by application of the
partial of data series, Nash-Sutcliffe coefficients have increased for all watersheds. That shows by omitting the data
that are related to last precipitation and especially last snows, model will have better results. According to Henriksen
grouping for Nash-Sutcliffe, model results were weak for northern watersheds of Iran because these watersheds
produce a lot of runoff and although have deep soil but have low infiltration therefore model didn’t have good
results in those.
Also model coefficients 1 & X 2 showed that for all data without omitting the runoff that are more than 1, there
aren’t meaning correlation among coefficients 1 & X 2 although after omitting the runoff that are more than 1 a
meaning correlation has been made among coefficients 1 & X 2 . Using this model for other small watersheds
with similar climatology, geology and height conditions is proposed.
KEYWORDS: Monthly discharge, Model, GR2M, Northern Watersheds, Iran.

INTRODUCTION

Discharge measurement and river flow regime, have made important information for water resources,
pollution controlling, conserve and even reserve those for researchers, however often these information aren’t
enough or there aren’t .this may be will a shortage for efficient usage of hydrological data for management projects
n river watersheds. Evaluating the hydrological models parameters has a lot of challenges and hydrological models
parameters are dependent on the input data. However input data qualities won’t be done because of errors in variable
measurements [1]
Using the old methods for assessment the hydrological model parameters in ungagged watersheds in order to
decreasing some parameters for calibration with changing the amounts of parameters are origin method .this shows
conceptual models can be made by changing the relations between model parameters and watershed
characteristics(Hreiche,2006).mostly hydrological model designers believe that , area and topography of
watersheds are important parts in hydrological responses in watersheds[2]
One of the most famous models and comments models is SCS model(curve number) all over the word, that in
this model both maximum discharge and surface flow regime in each point of case study will be calculate, however
assessment of these parameters isn’t easy because of non-liner the hydrological process[1].First efforts for
introducing the mode in order to obtain the monthly discharge have started in rifat watershed by

*Corresponding Author: Maryam Zolfaghari, Student of PhD., Department of Watershed Management, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad
University, Tehran, Iran, E-mail: Maryam_zolfaghari31@yahoo.com, Tel: +982144865484

463
 Zolfaghari et al., 2013

Orgival(1980)[3],then Kaboya(1990)[4], Makholof (1994) [5],and finally moulhi (2003)[6] could have 2 parameters
version of model that named GR2M for obtain monthly discharge in small watersheds in France, and Nash-Sutcliffe
was %70 that showed model had good results.
Semin and et al (2000)[7] used GR2M model in Africa and results showed that model had good estimation of
monthly discharge. Li and et al (2005)[8] used of GR2M in 102 watersheds in France and understand that geology
variability changed the parameters of model and resulted that model had good results. Lirat and et al (2006)[9] used
GR2M model for simulation the monthly regime in Guadiana watershed that had sub humid weather and resulted
good relation is between observed data and simulated data when using the model. Milhot and et al (2008)[10] used
the model in Canada and model calibration resulted similarity was between observed discharge and simulated
discharge.
Not having monthly discharge amounts have caused a lot of problems For natural resources and watershed
management organizations and also water resources organizations because these organizations need monthly
discharge in order to choosing watersheds surfaces for watershed spread activities, water resources programming
and rivers programming in order to have water reserves, in predicting for any watersheds after rainfall or flood or
even while designing dam for civil engineering’s.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Hydrological Models
Models should have characteristics such as simplify [11] and not have much parameters [12]. Choosing model
is dependent on model efficiency and necessary information, for example precipitation is one of key variable in most
models and most limitations are correlated not having a correct understanding of space and time details of
precipitation [13.]In fact precipitation has all aspects of watersheds responsible directly or indirectly [14]
Most large rivers have measurements stations for long times, but in small watersheds there aren’t long time
measurements of hydrological parameters such as discharge although these measurements are needed for watershed
management and other programs that are related to these measurements directly or indirectly. Climate of Iran
especially has caused different regimes of runoff. This causes tentative models won’t be reliable for all regions of
Iran and even for the regions that haves snows using SCS model has doubt with itself, so using other models such
as GR2M model in order to monthly regime determination shows the necessity of this research.
Flow Regime
Flow Regime Is different in some climate. In humid jungles watersheds there is high infiltration capacity
because of canopy cover and vegetation on land surface 1- saturated overland flow and 2- rainfall run off
mechanisms. these tow flows have variability of themselves according to canopy cover and vegetation, while in non
jangules watersheds the effects of these two factors aren’t important enough [15]
Model efficiency evaluation
Using of one model is related to efficiency of model in data simulation [16].in fact standards in model are
related to accordance between observed data and estimated data by some criterion such as Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency
and Coefficient of determination [17].
Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency has been made by Nash and Sutcliffe in 1970.
T
t
 (Q o  Q mt ) 2
t 1
EC , or , Nash ( Q )  1  T
(1)
 (Q ot  Q o ) 2
t 1

t
EC = Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency, Qo =observed discharge mean, Qo ==observed mean in time,
Q mt
=simulated discharge in time
E range is between−∞ to 1.the amounts that is near to 1 show highcorrelation between Simulated and observed
amounts [18].
Case study:
Case study is 17 small watersheds of Gilan and Mazandaran provinces that have humid weather in north of
Iran. Watersheds area is about 100 km2, the selected watersheds are shown in shape 1, characteristics of

464
 J. Basic. Appl. Sci. Res., 3(2)463-472, 2013

hydrometrics stations in selected watersheds has been shown in table 1 and physiographical characteristics has been
shown in table 2 .

Figure1: Selected watersheds in Gilan and Mazandarn(Iran)

Table 1: characteristics of hydrometrics stations in selected watersheds

province height Station Geographical cordinate River Watersh Station name number
code latitude longitude ed code
Mazandaran 275 1504111 36 31 31 53 25 32 garmrood 1521 beliran 1
Gilan 80 16059 36 59 51 50 18 11 samush 14151 haratbar 2
Gilan 130 16091 37 00 14 50 26 04 khoshkrood 14161 bajigoabar 3
Mazandaran 110 16509 36 45 28 50 48 57 sorkhrood 1421 palantan 4
Gilan 40 17111 37 10 15 49 38 53 siahrood 1228 behdan 5
Gilan 35 18035 38 05 35 48 51 54 shirabad 1212 ustaghasem 6
Gilan 50 18044 38 14 08 48 49 41 lamir 1212 ghorbanalimahale 7

Gilan -20 18045 38 13 00 48 51 chelvand 1212 chelvand 8

Gilan 50 18047 38 18 47 48 49 36 36 levandvil 1212 bahsmahale 9
Gilan 200 18061 38 07 06 39 12 34 gasht 1212 pirsara 10
Gilan 30 18075 38 17 26 48 49 26 chelvand 1212 khnahayati 11
Gilan 10 18079 38 25 41 48 48 19 molahadi 1212 jebraeilmahale 12
Gilan 70 18090 37 42 03 48 56 56 khalesara 1212 kalesara 13
Gilan 200 18950 38 24 03 48 41 56 baharestan 14273 baharestan 14
Mazandaran - 16031 36 42 00 51 14 kelarabad 1212 esbahrood 15
Gilan 35 18039 38 11 01 48 50 32 choobar 1212 choobarbala 16
Gilan -21 18043 38 14 00 48 51 Lamirmahale 1212 lamir 17

465
 Zolfaghari et al., 2013

Table 2: physiographical characteristics of watersheds

Watershed Watershed weight Average Minimu Maximum Length of Environment Area Hygrometry Number of
height gravity average height of slope of m height height basin (km) (km2) station code watershed
center of watershed waterway (m) (m) waterway
watershed (m) (m) (%)
380 1079.34 8.018 50 2350 2865 57.26 108 15041 1
1540 1577.80 16.874 250 3687 20367.7 46.57 98.23 16059 2
990 1677.34 17.09 230 3790 20820 49.79 100.176 16091 3
1790 1709.39 36.455 610 3067.48 6741 19.24 190.5 16509 4
270 325.09 2.722 100 700 2204 44.61 61.359 17111 5
1500 1617.68 9.357 167.5 3119.8 31551 57.99 82.66 18035 6
515 894.57 12.885 35.6 1872.7 16216 33 46 18044 7
580 823.15 9.21 110 1970 20192 43.78 65.65 18045 8
630 808.01 11.12 150 1910 15826 34.31 38.18 18047 9
720 872.49 17.24 35.6 1872.7 10654 27.15 42.57 18061 10
560 971.22 10.38 150 1970 17518 37.93 37.49 18075 11
340 451.20 10.88 30.08 1390 12496 29.09 37.05 18079 12
520 778.91 9.98 110 1250 11421 29.47 44.88 18090 13
690 959.06 14.78 330 1910 10685 24.19 33.68 18950 14
310 390.73 13.50 95 1610 11216 23.28 16.37 16031 15
1040 1113.73 13.05 10.5 2369 18061 42.97 62.16 18039 16
680 829.78 11.31 10.5 2100 18461 42.74 86.24 18043 17

GR2M MODEL
For simulation the monthly regime we use GR2M model .in this model assume that watershed has maximum
X 1 , therefore in starting the simulation ,humidity reservation of
acceptance of humidity (in soli layers) equal to
watershed is equal S . When downfalls occurred, some part of precipitation increased humidity height to S1
(formula 1 and Figure 2)
S  X 1 (1)
S1 
S P
1   tanh( )
X1 , X1
P1  P  S  S1 (2)

Figure 2: level R in routing (ostaghasmemahaleh watershed

Then some of precipitation that doesn’t infiltrate to earth, changes to surface flow
P1 (formula 2), according to

amount of evapotransiraton ETP , humidity conservation height decreases from S1 to S 2 (formula 3)

466
 J. Basic. Appl. Sci. Res., 3(2)463-472, 2013

S1(1  ) (3)
S2 
ETP  S 
  tanh( ) 1  1  1 
X1 ,  X1 

From S 2 depth equal to P2 for changing to interflow and adding to groundwater reservoirs and finally draining
to waterway or consuming infiltrates to under layers and then soli humidity reservoirs changed to S in order to
P3
simulation the another menthe.(formulas 4,5).in result all water is in form formula 6.

S2 (4)
S 1
  S 3  3
1   2  
  X 1  

P2  S 2  S (5)

P3  P1  P2 (6)

R1  R  P3 (7)

R amount is affected by groundwater exchanges outside of watershed and decreases to R 2 in result by

dimensionless coefficient X 2 will obtained equal ,more or less than zero(formula8)the amount of this coefficient
for nutrition the groundwater reservoirs is less than 1 and while draining the interflow is more than 1 and while not
exchange any flows with other watersheds is 1 .maximum capacity of reservoirs is 60 mm and by vacating Q will be
made(formula 9)and also r amount for another month will be made.(formula 10)
R  X .R (8)
2 2 1

R 2 (9)
2
Q
R2  60
R  R2  Q (10)

MODLE CALIBRATION
For calibration used from solver in EXCELL software and for obtain the good results Nash (Q), Nash(VQ)and
Nash(ln(Q) obtained by solver and good coefficient is the coefficient that has made more Nash Sutcliff coefficient,
if Nash is equal to 0 or less than 0 it shows observed mean is better than simulated mean while Nash amount is 1 it
shows complete adaptation is between observed mean and simulated mean by model(Moriasi et al,2007).
Running model:
After completing all data such as monthly precipitation, monthly flow, monthly evapotranspiration running
model started by software. It’s necessary to say for having good , evapotranspiration calculated by crowpat software
(version 8), firstly explain about this software.
CROPWAT SOFTWARE
Cropwat is application software that used for evapotranspiration calculation, vegetation watery requirements,
and irrigation requirements of them, cropwat used Of data such as maximum temperature, minimum temperature,
wind ,humidity, sun hours and then its results is radiation amount of solar and also finally evapotranspiration amount
based on FAO Penman manthis will be determined.
In this research all necessary input data studied and after omitting unsuitable data evapotranspiration obtained
in order to using in GR2M model.

467
 Zolfaghari et al., 2013

In order to obtain mean Precipitation for each month initially all hydrometric and meteorological station in all
areas of watersheds Were distinguished then best station that their height were similar to watershed height and had
distance less than 20 km to gravity center of watershed and also had meaning correlation(R2) among monthly
precipitation. This study has done in two parts.
1- By all data that had runoff equal more and less than 1
2- by some data that had runoff equal 1 or less than 1

RESULTS

All amounts after doing model in 17 watersheds such as 1 & X 2 coefficients, Nash (Q), Nash (VQ), Nash
(ln(Q), Bias are shown in table 3, that 1 & X 2 and Nash(Q)coefficients are most important coefficients in model
because by Nash(Q) coefficients we can understand how much model is near to reality and finally we can decide
what relation there is between calculated amounts and observed amounts of model. By situation obtained 1 & X 2
coefficients in all formulas that explained in material and method, monthly discharge will be obtained and reality
most important goal of doing this model has obtained.

Tabel3: calibration coefficient amounts ( 1 & X 2 ) and Nash coefficient

For some For all coefficient Watersheds For some For all coefficient Watersheds
data data name data data name
0.51 0.51 Palantan-1423 8.48 9.96 Beliran-1521
( 1 ) ( 1 )
0.53 0.53 1.31 0.45
( 2 ) ( 2 )
35.2 35.2 Nash(Q) % -8.7 -31.7 Nash(Q) %
27.9 27.9 Nash(VQ) % -26.9 -61.9 Nash(VQ) %
17.1 17.1 Nash(ln(Q)) % -92.5 -113 Nash(ln(Q)) %
99.9 99.9 Bias% 90.5 91.8 Bias%
8.19 7.82 Behdan-1228 7.39 7.34 Espahrood-1212
( 1 ) ( 1 )
0.80 1.22 1.31 1.07
( 2 ) ( 2 )
12.5 6.4 Nash(Q) % 45.8 41.4 Nash(Q) %
10.3 8.4 Nash(VQ) % 47.1 41.9 Nash(VQ) %
-2.5 -0.1 Nash(ln(Q)) % 37.1 32.1 Nash(ln(Q)) %
101.5 98.2 Bias% 101.6 100 Bias%
8.41 8.90 Ustaghasemma 7 7 Haratbar-141151
( 1 ) hale ( 1 )
0.64 0.72 0.25 0.25
( 2 ) -1212 ( 2 )
16.5 -5.7 Nash(Q) % 18 18 Nash(Q) %
18.3 -6.2 Nash(VQ) % 13.2 13.2 Nash(VQ) %
11.7 -10 Nash(ln(Q)) % 4.8 4.8 Nash(ln(Q)) %
100.7 94.6 Bias% 86.4 86.4 Bias%
7.57 8.81 Chobarbala 7.83 8.30 Bajigoabar-
( 1 ) mahale-1212 ( 1 ) 14162
0.71 0.81 0.92 1.05
( 2 ) ( 2 )
20.6 -3.7 Nash(Q) % 44.2 37.5 Nash(Q) %
14.5 -6.7 Nash(VQ) % 50.4 42.2 Nash(VQ) %
0.2 -15.3 Nash(ln(Q)) % 52.6 42.8 Nash(ln(Q)) %
102.2 96.5 Bias% 99.5 100 Bias%
6.74 8.49 Pirsara-1226 9.63 9.73 Lamir-1212
( 1 ) ( 1 )
10.8 1.57 0.19 0.20
( 2 ) ( 2 )
45.5 6 Nash(Q) % -18.7 -26.4 Nash(Q) %
50.6 4.9 Nash(VQ) % -21.5 -29.4 Nash(VQ) %
51.6 -1 Nash(ln(Q)) % -21.7 -28.2 Nash(ln(Q)) %
100.9 99.8 Bias% 91.8 89.4 Bias%
4.7 8.37 Khanhayati- 8.96 8.85 Ghorbanalimate-
( 1 ) 1212 ( 1 ) 1212

0.94 1.83 0.79 1.35

( 2 ) ( 2 )

468
 J. Basic. Appl. Sci. Res., 3(2)463-472, 2013

69 10.9 Nash(Q) % 18.4 -6.8 Nash(Q) %

59.2 13.1 Nash(VQ) % 18 -9.2 Nash(VQ) %
41.8 8.7 Nash(ln(Q)) % 15.3 -13.5 Nash(ln(Q)) %
96 100.1 Bias% 99.4 95.8 Bias%
3.19 9.64 6.12 10.34
( 1 ) ( 1 )
59.1 -19.3 Nash(Q) % Jebreil 56 18.7 Nash(Q) % Chelvand-1212
42.6 -16.9 Nash(VQ) % mahaleh-5612 40.9 12.1 Nash(VQ) %
20.8 -15 Nash(ln(Q)) % 26.1 -5 Nash(ln(Q)) %
101.4 85 Bias% 102 102.3 Bias%
4.63 5.16 8.2 8.58 Bashmahale-
( 1 ) ( 1 ) 1212
10.9 1.34 0.7 1.05
( 2 ) Kale sara-1212 ( 2 )
79.2 57.7 Nash(Q) % 29.4 7.8 Nash(Q) %
76.3 61 Nash(VQ) % 24.5 4.9 Nash(VQ) %
72.9 63.6 Nash(ln(Q)) % 10.5 -7 Nash(ln(Q)) %
100.7 98.9 Bias% 102.4 99.6 Bias%
7.99 9.37 Baharestan-
( 1 ) 14273
0.68 1.11
( 2 )
46 14.5 Nash(Q) %
42.4 10.4 Nash(VQ) %
34.8 -2.4 Nash(ln(Q)) %
97.6 101.4 Bias%

Also figures obtained by model for each watershed .these diagrams have shown in figures 3-10.This model had
showed differences between stream flow and simulated flow(figure 3) , simulated flow and observed flow in order
to compare real amounts of flow and calculated amounts by model(figure 4), suitable and advantage storage(figure
5),and also storage that have got out watersheds(figure 6)

200 0

Rainfall (mm/month)
100
(mm/month)
Streamflow

150
200
100
Rainfall 300
Observed flow
50 400
Simulated flow
0 500
Jan-01 Jan-03
Figure 3: stream flow, simulated flow and rainfall (Haratbar watershed)

80
70
Simalated flow

60
(mm/month)

50
40
30
20
10
0
0 10 20 30
Observed flow (mm/month)

469
 Zolfaghari et al., 2013

Figure4: simulated flow and observed flow (Haratbar watershed)

700

production store
600

Level S in
500

(mm)
400
300
200
100
0
Dec-99 Apr-01 Sep-02 Jan-04 May-05
Figure 5: level s in production (Haratbar watershed)

60
Level R in routing store

50
40
30
(mm)

20
10
0
Dec-99 Apr-01 Sep-02 Jan-04 May-05

Figure 6: level R in routing (Haratbar watershed)

After evaluating the model coefficients mean amounts of all coefficients have been calculated and also
minimum amounts and maximum amounts of all coefficients have obtained for seeing changes range that model
have been made for all coefficients.(table 4)

Table 4: Amounts average of coefficients and monthly model work for all data (t) and some data (o) in selected
watersheds
Maximum amount of Min amount Mean amounts coefficients
coefficient of coefficient
10.34 0.51 9.51 X1t
9.63 0.51 6.33 X1o
1.83 0.2 0.77 X2t
1.31 0.19 0.70 X2o
57.7 -31.7 9.67 %Nash(Qt)
79.2 18.7 27.05 %Nash(Qo)
61 -61.9 4.87 %Nash(VQt)
76.3 -26.9 22.55 %Nash(VQo)
62.2 -113 -5.43 %Nash(ln(Qt)
72.9 -92.5 3.77 %Nash(ln(Qo)
101.4 86.4 134.7 %Bias(t)
90.4 86.4 92.2 %Bias(o)

DISCUSSION AND COCLUSION

After model calibration, Nash (Q) percent in watersheds was equal to 9.67 while after omitting the data by
runoff coefficients more than 1Nash (Q) percent was equal to 27.05

470
 J. Basic. Appl. Sci. Res., 3(2)463-472, 2013

Also Nash coefficient had %17.38 increasing after omitting data related to runoff that more than 1 and this
showed, GR2M model had better and more suitable results when data are only monthly without run off that are
related to last precipitation.
Also according to table 4 1 & X 2 coefficients were related to each other and when X1 is increase also X2
is increased and vice versa, although changes of 1 & X 2 had reverse relation with other coefficient such as
%Nash(Qt),%Nash(VQt),Nash(ln(Qt).It means when 1 & X 2 have increased, other coefficients have
decreased, and when  1 & X 2 coefficients have decreased other coefficients have increased . altogether
1 & X 2 coefficients showed X1t=9.51, X1o=6.33, X2t=0.77, X2o=0.70. by amounts of x1 we resulted that X1
was high because of high precipitation and high depth of soil in these selected data, x1 was high because granulate
of soil and porosity of soils are high and amounts of X2t and x2o were less than 1 that showed these watersheds
were nutrition groundwater reservoirs and didn’t receive any water of near watersheds. we resulted X2 amounts
aren’t equal 1 because all selected watersheds have water exchange with other watersheds and if these watersheds
absorb water from near watersheds X2 is more than 1 but in fact X2 amounts in this research are less than one
because of not absorbing but also giving back water to near watersheds.
That showed weak results of GR2M model in these watersheds and showed that model isn’t suitable for
watersheds that have a lot of precipitation and low infiltration , it means in small watersheds by high precipitation if
infiltration of soil is good the model will results good if last runoff(related to runoff more than 1)omitted.. We
propose using GR2M model for small watersheds that have good soils by high depth and high infiltration also we
proposed this model for months that don’t have last runoff and snows that have melted in last months. Altogether using
GR2M model is very important and efficient especially in small watersheds for simulation the regime and obtaining the
discharge. Using this model is easy if input data is good and correct by all the formulas there are in this paper.
Although this researched results showed that GR2M model isn’t good for the watersheds similar to northern
watersheds by humid weather, but in research of Semin (2000)[7] in Africa model had good estimation of monthly
discharge because his selected watersheds t had high infiltration and low runoff also in research done by Li and et al
(2005)[8] in 102 watersheds in France model had good results because of good soils and geology environment that
had high infiltration. AlsoLirat and et al (2006)[9] resulted this model is very good for watersheds in Guadiana
because Guadiana watersheds had sub arid weather and he resulted this model had better results in watersheds by
sub arid weather not by humid weather.
And in Iran Rezaei et al (2010)[19] used this model for some watersheds in Zanjan province that have sub arid
weather and resulted that model had good results for obtaining discharge especially if input data is correct.
We can say GR2M model have best results in watersheds that have sub arid weather by high or low
precipitation but in watersheds by humid weather according to other researches didn’t have good results.

REFRENCES

[1]Bardossy, A. and S, K,Singh, 2008, Robust estimation of hydrological model parameters, Hydrol,
earthsymposium. Sci, 1273-1283pp.
[2]Beven, K.j., 2001, On hypothesis testing in hydrology, Hydrological processes, 15:1655-1657pp.
[3]-Orgival,VA., 1961,Computation of the autumn soil moisture using a universal relationship for a large area,
Proceedings Ukrinian, Hydrometeorological Research Institute(Kiev)3.
[4]-KaboyaA.R., Gustard, .A, Bullock, A., Seklin, .A.E ,Croker ,K.m, 2000 ,A River network based hydrological
Model for predicting natural and influenced flow statistics at ungauged sites, LOIS Special volume-SCi,Tot.
Environ.Vol.251/252,: 293-304pp
[5]Makhlouf, Z. et Michel, C., 1994, A two-parameter monthly water balance model for French watersheds. Journal
of Hydrology , 299-318pp.
[6]Mouelhi, S., Michel , C., Perrin, C. et Andreassian, V. ,2006, Linking stream flow to rainfall at the annual time
step: the Manabe bucket model revisited. J. Hydrol. Vol: 328, 283-296pp.
[7] Simon, S., 2008, Combining the triangle method with thermal inertia to estimate regional evapotranspiration-
Applied to MSG-SEVIRI data in the Senegal River basin. IngeSandholt, Anette Norgaard. Rasmus.
KarstenHoghJensen. Remote sensing of Environment,Vol: 112, 1242-1255pp

471
 Zolfaghari et al., 2013

[8] Le Moine, N., V. Andréassian, C. Michel & C. Perrin, 2005, How to Account For Groundwater Exchanges In
Rainfall-Runoff Models In Zerger, A. and Argent, R.M.(eds) MODSIM , International Congress on Modelling
and Simulation. Modelling and Simulation Society of Australia and New Zealand, 2932-2938 pp
[9]Lerat,.J, Rasmussen,.P, Jorrgen,.H, Vazken.,K, 2006, Modelling the diversity of buffering capacity on semi-arid
Catchments, Purpose Expose the construction and the results of the model built on the Guadiana basin,
CATCHMENT DOMAIN MODEL, Part B. Focus on the Guadiana basin Filename NW D153 Guadiana
V5.doc
[10]-Mailhot, A, 2008, Calibration of hydrological model GR2M using Bayesian uncertainty analysis, Institut
National de la RechercheScientifique, Centre Eau, Terre &Environnement, Québec (Qc), Canada
[11]Bouabdallah, F. ,1997, Mise au point d'un modèle de transformation pluie-débit au pas de temps annuel.
Rapport de DEA, DEA Hydrogéologie-HydrologiefilièreGéochimieisotopique, Paris SudOrsay, Cemagref
Antony,: 45p.
[12] Post, D. And A. J. Jakman. 1996. Relationhips between catchment attributes and hydrological resonse
characteristics in small Australian Montain ash catchments. Hydrol, process., vol 10, 877-892pp
[13] Hughes, DA. ,2006 , Modelling semi-arid and arid hydrology and water resources - the southern African
experience. Ch. 3 in Hydrological Modeling in Arid and Semi-Arid Areas, Cambridge Univ. Press
[14]- LeratJ.,Rasmussen P.,Henrikson H-J.Anreassian V.,Perrin.PyanJ-L.,Barlebo H, 2006, Modelling the diversity
of buffering capacity on semi-arid catchmentd,Catchment Domain Model,PartB,Focus on the Guadiana
basin,d153 uadiana V5.,1-36pp.
[15]-Du jinkang, V.U., 2001, Low flow hydrology: A review Journal of hydrology Vol: 240,. 147-186pp.
[16] Krause, P., Boyle, D. P., Base, F., 2005, Comparison of different efficiency criteria for hydrological model
assessment, Advances in Geosciences, Vol: 5, 89–97pp
[17] Kraus, D.R.L. Snyder,C. and Sirca,P, 2009, ECOWAT-A model for ecosystem evapotranspiration estimation.
Agricultrual and Fores Meteorology, Vol: 149, 1584-1596pp
[18]- Moriasi, D.N., Arnold, J.G., Van Liew, M.W., Bingner, R.L., Harmel, R.D., Veith, T.L, 2007, Model
evaluation guidelines for systematic quantification of accuracy in watershed simulations. Transactions of the
ASABE. Vol:50(3), 885-900pp.
[19]Rezaei et al.simulation monthly discharge by gr2m model,201,Agriculture and Natural Resources Research
Centre, Zanjan, Iran
[20]- Henriksen, H. J., Troldborg, L., Nyegaard, P., ObelSonnenborg, T., Refsgaard, J. C., Madsen, B., 2003,
Methodology for construction, calibration and validationof a national hydrological model for Denmark, Journal
of Hydrology, Vol: 280, 52–71pp.
[21] Smith, M. Allen, R. Monteith, J.L. Perrier, L.A.andSegeren, A ,1991,Report on theExpert Consultation for the
Revision of FAO Methodologies for Crop Water Requirements. FAO/AGL, Rome
[22] Stefan W. Kienzle a, , Michael W. Nemeth b, James M. Byrne a, Ryan J. MacDonald, 2012, Simulating the
hydrological impacts of climate change in the upper North, Saskatchewan River basin, Alberta, Canada,
Journal of Hydrology, Vol: 412-413,76-89PP.
[23]- Thornthwaite, CW., 1984, An approach toward a rational classification of climate, Gographical Review,
Vol:38,:55-94pp

472