Mekong Delta Runoff Prediction Using Standardized Remotely-Sensed Water Balance Variables

Abstract

A suitable routing model for predicting future monthly water discharge (WD) is essential for operational hydrology, including water supply, and hydrological extreme management, to mention but a few. This is particularly important for a remote area without a sufficient number of in-situ data, promoting the usage of remotely sensed surface variables. Direct correlation analysis between ground-observed WD and localized passive remotely-sensed surface variables (e.g., indices and geometric variables) has been studied extensively over the past two decades. Most of these related studies focused on the usage of constructed correlative relationships for estimating WD at ungauged locations. Nevertheless, temporal prediction performance of monthly runoff (R) (being an average representation of WD of a catchment) at the river delta reconstructed from the basin’s upstream remotely-sensed water balance variables via a standardization approach has not been explored. This study examined the standardization approach via linear regression using the remotely-sensed water balance variables from upstream of the Mekong Basin to reconstruct and predict monthly R time series at the Mekong Delta. This was subsequently compared to that based on artificial intelligence (AI) models. Accounting for less than 1% improvement via the AI-based models over that of a direct linear regression, our results showed that both the reconstructed and predicted Rs based on the proposed approach yielded a 2–6% further improvement, in particular the reduction of discrepancy in the peak and trough of WD, over those reconstructed and predicted from the remotely-sensed water balance variables without standardization. This further indicated the advantage of the proposed standardization approach to mitigate potential environmental influences. The best R, predicted from standardized water storage over the whole upstream area, attained the highest Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.978 and Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency of 0.947, and the lowest normalized root-mean-square error of 0.072.