Snowmelt Modelling Approaches in Watershed Models: Computation and Comparison of Efficiencies under Varying Climatic Conditions

Most of the watershed models contain snowmelt-computing options but there are modelling difficulties in snow-covered watersheds either due to paucity of data or in addressing snowmelt computation weakly. The temperature index (TI) and/or energy balance (EB algorithms of HEC-1, NWSRFS, PRMS, SHE, SRM...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Water resources management 2014-09, Vol.28 (11), p.3439-3453
Hauptverfasser: Verdhen, Anand, Chahar, Bhagu R, Sharma, Om P
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 3453
container_issue 11
container_start_page 3439
container_title Water resources management
container_volume 28
creator Verdhen, Anand
Chahar, Bhagu R
Sharma, Om P
description Most of the watershed models contain snowmelt-computing options but there are modelling difficulties in snow-covered watersheds either due to paucity of data or in addressing snowmelt computation weakly. The temperature index (TI) and/or energy balance (EB algorithms of HEC-1, NWSRFS, PRMS, SHE, SRM, SSARR, SWAT, TANK, and UBC models have been investigated. The performance has been evaluated at the point (station specific) snowmelt computation with and without snowpack accounting. The computations have been performed for Solang station at 2 485 m altitude located in the western Himalayas. Springtime weekly snow and meteorological data of 1 983, 2003, and 2008 have been used. Data year 2008 has been used for weekly simulation with the observed snowpack ablation. The probability of success in simulating the snowmelt using TI/EB of all the models in average is 0.77. Nash-Sutcliffe (NS) efficiency coefficients for simulation with snowpack accounting are found to vary between 0.84 and 0.97. Although NS coefficients for verification year 2003 are satisfactory (0.5 to 0.88) but snowmelt prediction/verification efficiency at an interval of 25 years (1983) is below average. However, verification on probability criteria for data year 1983 in the case of TI/EB is 0.63/0.48. Results from EB approach show wind dependent fluctuations. Uncertainty arises due to inter-decadal variability of the snowpack/snowmelt. The approach applied in this paper is valuable in order to have a quick evaluation of snowmelt algorithm before integrating it with any operational watershed model.
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s11269-014-0662-7
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1642330141</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1642330141</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c436t-18c94cf5c6934c6098e6cb941977cdbfc00fe88815822a9d510a11f152f77c283</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkk9rFTEUxYMo-Kx-AFcGRHAzmptkMom78qh_oKWLWl2GNJO8TpmXPJMZpCu_unecIsWFXYQQ8jvn5t4TQl4CeweMde8rAFemYSAbphRvukdkA20nGlAte0w2zHDWyE7CU_Ks1hvGUGXYhvy6SPnnPowTPct9GMch7ejx4VCy89eh0iHR724KpV6HfiXqB7rN-8M8uWnIibrU_zm7MlQ85khPYhz8EBKuSufUh0K_uXK7GG_HYY8yj4rUD4u-PidPohtreHG3H5HLjydft5-b0_NPX7bHp42XQk0NaG-kj61XRkivmNFB-SsjwXSd76-iZywGrTW0mnNn-haYA4jQ8ogA1-KIvF19sbUfc6iT3Q_VY8MuhTxXC0pyIXB88DDattLIzjCO6Ot_0Js8l4SNICU1dJqzpTaslC-51hKiPRQcRLm1wOySnl3Ts1jeLunZDjVv7pxd9W6MxeFA618h1wpACIMcX7mKV2kXyr0X_Mf81SqKLlu3w-js5QVHAL-FMFxz8RsgvrKy</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1548178208</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Snowmelt Modelling Approaches in Watershed Models: Computation and Comparison of Efficiencies under Varying Climatic Conditions</title><source>Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals</source><creator>Verdhen, Anand ; Chahar, Bhagu R ; Sharma, Om P</creator><creatorcontrib>Verdhen, Anand ; Chahar, Bhagu R ; Sharma, Om P</creatorcontrib><description>Most of the watershed models contain snowmelt-computing options but there are modelling difficulties in snow-covered watersheds either due to paucity of data or in addressing snowmelt computation weakly. The temperature index (TI) and/or energy balance (EB algorithms of HEC-1, NWSRFS, PRMS, SHE, SRM, SSARR, SWAT, TANK, and UBC models have been investigated. The performance has been evaluated at the point (station specific) snowmelt computation with and without snowpack accounting. The computations have been performed for Solang station at 2 485 m altitude located in the western Himalayas. Springtime weekly snow and meteorological data of 1 983, 2003, and 2008 have been used. Data year 2008 has been used for weekly simulation with the observed snowpack ablation. The probability of success in simulating the snowmelt using TI/EB of all the models in average is 0.77. Nash-Sutcliffe (NS) efficiency coefficients for simulation with snowpack accounting are found to vary between 0.84 and 0.97. Although NS coefficients for verification year 2003 are satisfactory (0.5 to 0.88) but snowmelt prediction/verification efficiency at an interval of 25 years (1983) is below average. However, verification on probability criteria for data year 1983 in the case of TI/EB is 0.63/0.48. Results from EB approach show wind dependent fluctuations. Uncertainty arises due to inter-decadal variability of the snowpack/snowmelt. The approach applied in this paper is valuable in order to have a quick evaluation of snowmelt algorithm before integrating it with any operational watershed model.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0920-4741</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1573-1650</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s11269-014-0662-7</identifier><identifier>CODEN: WRMAEJ</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Dordrecht: Springer-Verlag</publisher><subject>Algorithms ; Altitude ; Atmospheric pressure ; Atmospheric Sciences ; Civil Engineering ; Climatic conditions ; climatic factors ; Computation ; Computer simulation ; Earth and Environmental Science ; Earth Sciences ; Earth, ocean, space ; Efficiency ; Energy balance ; Environment ; Exact sciences and technology ; Geotechnical Engineering &amp; Applied Earth Sciences ; Hydrogeology ; hydrologic models ; Hydrology ; Hydrology. Hydrogeology ; Hydrology/Water Resources ; Mathematical models ; meteorological data ; Precipitation ; prediction ; Runoff ; Simulation ; Snow ; Snowmelt ; Snowpack ; spring ; Stations ; Stream flow ; Studies ; temperature ; uncertainty ; Vegetation ; Water resources ; Water resources management ; Watersheds ; Weather ; Wind</subject><ispartof>Water resources management, 2014-09, Vol.28 (11), p.3439-3453</ispartof><rights>Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014</rights><rights>2015 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c436t-18c94cf5c6934c6098e6cb941977cdbfc00fe88815822a9d510a11f152f77c283</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c436t-18c94cf5c6934c6098e6cb941977cdbfc00fe88815822a9d510a11f152f77c283</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11269-014-0662-7$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11269-014-0662-7$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27903,27904,41467,42536,51297</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=28611339$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Verdhen, Anand</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chahar, Bhagu R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sharma, Om P</creatorcontrib><title>Snowmelt Modelling Approaches in Watershed Models: Computation and Comparison of Efficiencies under Varying Climatic Conditions</title><title>Water resources management</title><addtitle>Water Resour Manage</addtitle><description>Most of the watershed models contain snowmelt-computing options but there are modelling difficulties in snow-covered watersheds either due to paucity of data or in addressing snowmelt computation weakly. The temperature index (TI) and/or energy balance (EB algorithms of HEC-1, NWSRFS, PRMS, SHE, SRM, SSARR, SWAT, TANK, and UBC models have been investigated. The performance has been evaluated at the point (station specific) snowmelt computation with and without snowpack accounting. The computations have been performed for Solang station at 2 485 m altitude located in the western Himalayas. Springtime weekly snow and meteorological data of 1 983, 2003, and 2008 have been used. Data year 2008 has been used for weekly simulation with the observed snowpack ablation. The probability of success in simulating the snowmelt using TI/EB of all the models in average is 0.77. Nash-Sutcliffe (NS) efficiency coefficients for simulation with snowpack accounting are found to vary between 0.84 and 0.97. Although NS coefficients for verification year 2003 are satisfactory (0.5 to 0.88) but snowmelt prediction/verification efficiency at an interval of 25 years (1983) is below average. However, verification on probability criteria for data year 1983 in the case of TI/EB is 0.63/0.48. Results from EB approach show wind dependent fluctuations. Uncertainty arises due to inter-decadal variability of the snowpack/snowmelt. The approach applied in this paper is valuable in order to have a quick evaluation of snowmelt algorithm before integrating it with any operational watershed model.</description><subject>Algorithms</subject><subject>Altitude</subject><subject>Atmospheric pressure</subject><subject>Atmospheric Sciences</subject><subject>Civil Engineering</subject><subject>Climatic conditions</subject><subject>climatic factors</subject><subject>Computation</subject><subject>Computer simulation</subject><subject>Earth and Environmental Science</subject><subject>Earth Sciences</subject><subject>Earth, ocean, space</subject><subject>Efficiency</subject><subject>Energy balance</subject><subject>Environment</subject><subject>Exact sciences and technology</subject><subject>Geotechnical Engineering &amp; Applied Earth Sciences</subject><subject>Hydrogeology</subject><subject>hydrologic models</subject><subject>Hydrology</subject><subject>Hydrology. Hydrogeology</subject><subject>Hydrology/Water Resources</subject><subject>Mathematical models</subject><subject>meteorological data</subject><subject>Precipitation</subject><subject>prediction</subject><subject>Runoff</subject><subject>Simulation</subject><subject>Snow</subject><subject>Snowmelt</subject><subject>Snowpack</subject><subject>spring</subject><subject>Stations</subject><subject>Stream flow</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>temperature</subject><subject>uncertainty</subject><subject>Vegetation</subject><subject>Water resources</subject><subject>Water resources management</subject><subject>Watersheds</subject><subject>Weather</subject><subject>Wind</subject><issn>0920-4741</issn><issn>1573-1650</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2014</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkk9rFTEUxYMo-Kx-AFcGRHAzmptkMom78qh_oKWLWl2GNJO8TpmXPJMZpCu_unecIsWFXYQQ8jvn5t4TQl4CeweMde8rAFemYSAbphRvukdkA20nGlAte0w2zHDWyE7CU_Ks1hvGUGXYhvy6SPnnPowTPct9GMch7ejx4VCy89eh0iHR724KpV6HfiXqB7rN-8M8uWnIibrU_zm7MlQ85khPYhz8EBKuSufUh0K_uXK7GG_HYY8yj4rUD4u-PidPohtreHG3H5HLjydft5-b0_NPX7bHp42XQk0NaG-kj61XRkivmNFB-SsjwXSd76-iZywGrTW0mnNn-haYA4jQ8ogA1-KIvF19sbUfc6iT3Q_VY8MuhTxXC0pyIXB88DDattLIzjCO6Ot_0Js8l4SNICU1dJqzpTaslC-51hKiPRQcRLm1wOySnl3Ts1jeLunZDjVv7pxd9W6MxeFA618h1wpACIMcX7mKV2kXyr0X_Mf81SqKLlu3w-js5QVHAL-FMFxz8RsgvrKy</recordid><startdate>20140901</startdate><enddate>20140901</enddate><creator>Verdhen, Anand</creator><creator>Chahar, Bhagu R</creator><creator>Sharma, Om P</creator><general>Springer-Verlag</general><general>Springer Netherlands</general><general>Springer</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>FBQ</scope><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0U~</scope><scope>1-H</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QH</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7UA</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>87Z</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>BKSAR</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H97</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>KR7</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>L.0</scope><scope>L.G</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PCBAR</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>SOI</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7U6</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>7SU</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20140901</creationdate><title>Snowmelt Modelling Approaches in Watershed Models: Computation and Comparison of Efficiencies under Varying Climatic Conditions</title><author>Verdhen, Anand ; Chahar, Bhagu R ; Sharma, Om P</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c436t-18c94cf5c6934c6098e6cb941977cdbfc00fe88815822a9d510a11f152f77c283</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2014</creationdate><topic>Algorithms</topic><topic>Altitude</topic><topic>Atmospheric pressure</topic><topic>Atmospheric Sciences</topic><topic>Civil Engineering</topic><topic>Climatic conditions</topic><topic>climatic factors</topic><topic>Computation</topic><topic>Computer simulation</topic><topic>Earth and Environmental Science</topic><topic>Earth Sciences</topic><topic>Earth, ocean, space</topic><topic>Efficiency</topic><topic>Energy balance</topic><topic>Environment</topic><topic>Exact sciences and technology</topic><topic>Geotechnical Engineering &amp; Applied Earth Sciences</topic><topic>Hydrogeology</topic><topic>hydrologic models</topic><topic>Hydrology</topic><topic>Hydrology. Hydrogeology</topic><topic>Hydrology/Water Resources</topic><topic>Mathematical models</topic><topic>meteorological data</topic><topic>Precipitation</topic><topic>prediction</topic><topic>Runoff</topic><topic>Simulation</topic><topic>Snow</topic><topic>Snowmelt</topic><topic>Snowpack</topic><topic>spring</topic><topic>Stations</topic><topic>Stream flow</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>temperature</topic><topic>uncertainty</topic><topic>Vegetation</topic><topic>Water resources</topic><topic>Water resources management</topic><topic>Watersheds</topic><topic>Weather</topic><topic>Wind</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Verdhen, Anand</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chahar, Bhagu R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sharma, Om P</creatorcontrib><collection>AGRIS</collection><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Global News &amp; ABI/Inform Professional</collection><collection>Trade PRO</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Aqualine</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Water Resources Abstracts</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Materials Science &amp; Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Agricultural &amp; Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>Technology Collection (ProQuest)</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection (ProQuest)</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric &amp; Aquatic Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 3: Aquatic Pollution &amp; Environmental Quality</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Standard</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric &amp; Aquatic Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Sustainability Science Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>Environmental Engineering Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Water resources management</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Verdhen, Anand</au><au>Chahar, Bhagu R</au><au>Sharma, Om P</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Snowmelt Modelling Approaches in Watershed Models: Computation and Comparison of Efficiencies under Varying Climatic Conditions</atitle><jtitle>Water resources management</jtitle><stitle>Water Resour Manage</stitle><date>2014-09-01</date><risdate>2014</risdate><volume>28</volume><issue>11</issue><spage>3439</spage><epage>3453</epage><pages>3439-3453</pages><issn>0920-4741</issn><eissn>1573-1650</eissn><coden>WRMAEJ</coden><abstract>Most of the watershed models contain snowmelt-computing options but there are modelling difficulties in snow-covered watersheds either due to paucity of data or in addressing snowmelt computation weakly. The temperature index (TI) and/or energy balance (EB algorithms of HEC-1, NWSRFS, PRMS, SHE, SRM, SSARR, SWAT, TANK, and UBC models have been investigated. The performance has been evaluated at the point (station specific) snowmelt computation with and without snowpack accounting. The computations have been performed for Solang station at 2 485 m altitude located in the western Himalayas. Springtime weekly snow and meteorological data of 1 983, 2003, and 2008 have been used. Data year 2008 has been used for weekly simulation with the observed snowpack ablation. The probability of success in simulating the snowmelt using TI/EB of all the models in average is 0.77. Nash-Sutcliffe (NS) efficiency coefficients for simulation with snowpack accounting are found to vary between 0.84 and 0.97. Although NS coefficients for verification year 2003 are satisfactory (0.5 to 0.88) but snowmelt prediction/verification efficiency at an interval of 25 years (1983) is below average. However, verification on probability criteria for data year 1983 in the case of TI/EB is 0.63/0.48. Results from EB approach show wind dependent fluctuations. Uncertainty arises due to inter-decadal variability of the snowpack/snowmelt. The approach applied in this paper is valuable in order to have a quick evaluation of snowmelt algorithm before integrating it with any operational watershed model.</abstract><cop>Dordrecht</cop><pub>Springer-Verlag</pub><doi>10.1007/s11269-014-0662-7</doi><tpages>15</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0920-4741
ispartof Water resources management, 2014-09, Vol.28 (11), p.3439-3453
issn 0920-4741
1573-1650
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1642330141
source Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals
subjects Algorithms
Altitude
Atmospheric pressure
Atmospheric Sciences
Civil Engineering
Climatic conditions
climatic factors
Computation
Computer simulation
Earth and Environmental Science
Earth Sciences
Earth, ocean, space
Efficiency
Energy balance
Environment
Exact sciences and technology
Geotechnical Engineering & Applied Earth Sciences
Hydrogeology
hydrologic models
Hydrology
Hydrology. Hydrogeology
Hydrology/Water Resources
Mathematical models
meteorological data
Precipitation
prediction
Runoff
Simulation
Snow
Snowmelt
Snowpack
spring
Stations
Stream flow
Studies
temperature
uncertainty
Vegetation
Water resources
Water resources management
Watersheds
Weather
Wind
title Snowmelt Modelling Approaches in Watershed Models: Computation and Comparison of Efficiencies under Varying Climatic Conditions
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-24T15%3A02%3A48IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Snowmelt%20Modelling%20Approaches%20in%20Watershed%20Models:%20Computation%20and%20Comparison%20of%20Efficiencies%20under%20Varying%20Climatic%20Conditions&rft.jtitle=Water%20resources%20management&rft.au=Verdhen,%20Anand&rft.date=2014-09-01&rft.volume=28&rft.issue=11&rft.spage=3439&rft.epage=3453&rft.pages=3439-3453&rft.issn=0920-4741&rft.eissn=1573-1650&rft.coden=WRMAEJ&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s11269-014-0662-7&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1642330141%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1548178208&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true