@article{fdi:010067383,
  title = {{H}ydrological modeling in {N}orthern {T}unisia with regional climate model outputs : performance evaluation and bias-correction in present climate conditions},
  author = {{F}oughali, {A}. and {T}ramblay, {Y}ves and {B}argaoui, {Z}. and {C}arreau, {J}ulie and {R}uelland, {D}.},
  editor = {},
  language = {{ENG}},
  abstract = {{T}his work aims to evaluate the performance of a hydrological balance model in a watershed located in northern {T}unisia (wadi {S}ejnane, 378 km 2) in present climate conditions using input variables provided by four regional climate models. {A} modified version ({MBBH}) of the lumped and single layer surface model {BBH} ({B}ucket with {B}ottom {H}ole model, in which pedo-transfer parameters estimated using watershed physiographic characteristics are introduced) is adopted to simulate the water balance components. {O}nly two parameters representing respectively the water retention capacity of the soil and the vegetation resistance to evapotranspiration are calibrated using rainfall-runoff data. {T}he evaluation criterions for the {MBBH} model calibration are: relative bias, mean square error and the ratio of mean actual evapotranspiration to mean potential evapotranspiration. {D}aily air temperature, rainfall and runoff observations are available from 1960 to 1984. {T}he period 1960-1971 is selected for calibration while the period 1972-1984 is chosen for validation. {A}ir temperature and precipitation series are provided by four regional climate models ({DMI}, {ARP}, {SMH} and {ICT}) from the {E}uropean program {ENSEMBLES}, forced by two global climate models ({GCM}): {ECHAM} and {ARPEGE}. {T}he regional climate model outputs (precipitation and air temperature) are compared to the observations in terms of statistical distribution. {T}he analysis was performed at the seasonal scale for precipitation. {W}e found out that {RCM} precipitation must be corrected before being introduced as {MBBH} inputs. {T}hus, a non-parametric quantile-quantile bias correction method together with a dry day correction is employed. {F}inally, simulated runoff generated using corrected precipitation from the regional climate model {SMH} is found the most acceptable by comparison with runoff simulated using observed precipitation data, to reproduce the temporal variability of mean monthly runoff. {T}he {SMH} model is the most accurate to reproduce the occurrence of dry days but still underestimates them. {F}rom the statistical distribution point of view, corrected {SMH} precipitation data introduced into the {MBBH} model were not able to reproduce extreme runoff values generated by observed precipitation data during validation (larger than 80 mm/month). {T}his may be due to the {SMH} weakness in reproducing moderate and high rainfall levels even after bias correction. {T}his approach may be considered as a way to use regional climate models ({RCM}) model outputs for studying hydrological impact.},
  keywords = {{BILAN} {HYDRIQUE} ; {EAU} {DU} {SOL} ; {MODELE} {HYDROLOGIQUE} ; {EVALUATION} ; {ETALONNAGE} ; {MODELE} {CLIMATIQUE} ; {PLUIE} ; {RUISSELLEMENT} ; {SIMULATION} ; {VARIATION} {TEMPORELLE} ; {PRECIPITATION} ; {VARIATION} {SAISONNIERE} ; {TEMPERATURE} ; {EVAPOTRANSPIRATION} ; {EVAPOTRANSPIRATION} {POTENTIELLE} ; {VEGETATION} ; {BASSIN} {VERSANT} ; {COURS} {D}'{EAU} ; {RETENTION} {D}'{EAU} ; {TUNISIE} ; {SEJNANE} {COURS} {D}'{EAU}},
  booktitle = {{R}egional climate modeling : advances, constraints and use for adaptation planning},
  journal = {{C}limate},
  volume = {3},
  numero = {3 ({N}o sp{\'e}cial)},
  pages = {459--473},
  ISSN = {2225-1154},
  year = {2015},
  DOI = {10.3390/cli3030459},
  URL = {https://www.documentation.ird.fr/hor/fdi:010067383},
}