Effect of monthly areal rainfall uncertainty on streamflow simulation

Areal rainfall is mostly obtained from point rainfall measurements that are sparsely located and several studies have shown that this results in large areal rainfall uncertainties at the daily time step. However, water resources assessment is often carried out a monthly time step and streamflow simulation is usually an essential component of this assessment. This study set out to quantify monthly areal rainfall uncertainties and assess their effect on streamflow simulation. This was achieved by; i) quantifying areal rainfall uncertainties and using these to generate stochastic monthly areal rainfalls, and ii) finding out how the quality of monthly streamflow simulation and streamflow variability change if stochastic areal rainfalls are used instead of historic areal rainfalls. Tests on monthly rainfall uncertainty were carried out using data from two South African catchments while streamflow simulation was confined to one of them. A non-parametric model that had been applied at a daily time step was used for stochastic areal rainfall generation and the Pitman catchment model calibrated using the SCE-UA optimizer was used for streamflow simulation. 100 randomly-initialised calibration-validation runs using 100 stochastic areal rainfalls were compared with 100 runs obtained using the single historic areal rainfall series. By using 4 rain gauges alternately to obtain areal rainfall, the resulting differences in areal rainfall averaged to 20% of the mean monthly areal rainfall and rainfall uncertainty was therefore highly significant. Pitman model simulations obtained coefficient of efficiencies averaging 0.66 and 0.64 in calibration and validation using historic rainfalls while the respective values using stochastic areal rainfalls were 0.59 and 0.57. Average bias was less than 5% in all cases. The streamflow ranges using historic rainfalls averaged to 29% of the mean naturalised flow in calibration and validation and the respective average ranges using stochastic monthly rainfalls were 86 and 90% of the mean naturalised streamflow. In calibration, 33% of the naturalised flow located within the streamflow ranges with historic rainfall simulations and using stochastic rainfalls increased this to 66%. In validation the respective percentages of naturalised flows located within the simulated streamflow ranges were 32 and 72% respectively. The analysis reveals that monthly areal rainfall uncertainty is significant and incorporating it into streamflow simulation would add validity to the results.