HYDROL 3710

Journal of Hydrology 216 (1999) 155–171

Study of the rainfall-runoff process in the Andes region using a

continuous distributed model
I. Braud a,*, P. Fernandez b, F. Bouraoui c
a
Laboratoire d’etudes des Transferts (LTHE CNRS UMR 5564, INPG, UJF), BP 53, 38041 Grenoble Cédex 9, France
b
CONICET/INA-CRA, Casilla de Correo 6, 5500 Mendoza, Argentina
c
CEMAGREF, 17 Avenue de Cucillé, 35044 Rennes, France
Received 29 June 1998; received in revised form 2 November 1998; accepted 16 November 1998

Abstract
The Precordillera area of the Andes Mountains (Mendoza, Argentina) is affected by severe flash floods, caused by heavy
rainfall events of short duration and high intensities. A telemetric network, installed on a pilot zone since 1983, provided a set of
about 150 rainfall events. In addition, about 50 flood events were recorded at the outlet of a 5.47 km 2 catchment. The distributed
model Areal Non-point Source Watershed Environment Response Simulation was adapted to this catchment and applied
continuously over the period 1983–1994. The year 1985 was used for calibration. The model was able to reproduce runoff
volume with an efficiency of 0.6, and peak discharge with an efficiency of 0.46. The largest events were however under-
estimated, although the model was able to reproduce the sharp increases in streamflow registered by the sensor. Based on the
assumption that the model had captured the catchment behaviour, it was used to determine the main processes involved in
runoff generation. The combination of rainfall and soil variability, mainly associated with a quasi-impervious area in the middle
of the catchment, was found to explain the rapid increases in streamflow. Vegetation, surface storage capacity, and initial soil
moisture were also influential but with a much smaller magnitude than the combination of rainfall and soil variability. 䉷 1999
Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Distributed model; Runoff; Variability; Soil; Precipitation; Hydrology; Andes

1. Introduction Mendoza. Therefore, it was of particular interest to

The Piemont and Precordillera areas of the Andes
mountains situated in western Mendoza (33–33.5⬚S,
68.8–69.1⬚W) (Argentina) are subject to heavy
summer rainfall events of short duration and high
intensities, characterised by a large spatial and
temporal variability over short distances (Fernandez
et al., 1997). These events can generate severe flash
floods, dangerous for the downstream city of
* Corresponding author. Tel.: 00-33-7682-5286.
E-mail address: Isabelle.Braud@hmg.inpg.fr (I. Braud)
0022-1694/99/$ - see front matter 䉷 1999 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S0022-169 4(98)00292-3
understand the mechanisms leading to the runoff
generation in this region. A telemetric network of
automatic rain gauges was set up in 1983 on a study
area of about 600 km 2, westward of the city of
Mendoza (Fernandez et al., 1988). A 5.47 km 2 catch-
ment, the Divisadero Largo, was also equipped with a
sensor recording streamflow (Fig. 1).
The collected data were already used in various
rainfall-runoff and sediment delivery studies using
mainly event based models (Mulders et al., 1990a,b;
Hoefsloot et al., 1992; Ligtenberg et al., 1992;
Sharma, 1993; Sharma et al., 1996a,b). The major
156 I. Braud et al. / Journal of Hydrology 216 (1999) 155–171

Fig. 1. Location of the study area in the Mendoza Province (Argentina). The Divisadero Largo map shows the four rainfall gauges (numbered
1100, 1400, 1500 and 2000) and the associated Thiessen polygons (shaded areas). Streamflow was also measured at gauge 2000.

drawback of these models is the initialisation of 2. Material and methods

the moisture status of the catchment prior to each
storm.
Therefore, the purpose of the study was: (i) to
study the feasibility of using a continuous model
on the Divisadero Largo catchment, and (ii) to
determine the main processes involved in runoff
generation in order to explain the sharp stream-
flow increases registered at the outlet of the catch-
ment. The distributed and continuous model Areal
Non-point Source Watershed Environment
Response Simulation (ANSWERS) (Beasley et
al., 1980), modified by Bouraoui and Dillaha
(1996) was used for these purposes. Available
data and model are presented in Section 2. Section
3 describes the calibration and validation of the
model. Finally, Section 4 presents a sensitivity
study conducted on the influence of the spatial
variability of surface properties and rainfall on
the hydrological response of the catchment.
2.1. Presentation of the Divisadero Largo catchment
The Divisadero Largo catchment (latitude:
32⬚55 0 S, longitude: 68⬚55 0 W) is part of a pilot zone
defined westwards of the city of Mendoza, Argentina,
near the Chilean border (Fig. 1). The watershed is
characterised by large slopes with an altitude varying
from 950 m at the outlet to 1420 m at the upper point.
The catchment is 5.47 km 2. It has an elongated shape
with an average width and length of 1.5 and 7 km,
respectively. The geology of the catchment is very
complex: eight different geological formations are
encountered at the surface: Potrerillos (1%), Cacheuta
(1.5%), Barrancas (2%), Rio Blanco (3%), Violet
Conglomerate (3.5%), Divisadero Largo (12%),
Marine (37%), and Quaternary (40%). Five of these
formations (Potrerillos, Cacheuta, Rio Blanco, Violet
Conglomerate and Divisadero Largo) can be
 I. Braud et al. / Journal of Hydrology 216 (1999) 155–171
considered as impervious and their influence on runoff
generation must be considered. A fault (Papagayos
fault) is present in the middle of the catchment. The
soils exhibit a very small thickness (from a few cm to
about 1 m) and are characterised by the presence of
coarse fragments except for the marine formation. The
vegetation is sparse and dominated by shrubs less than
2 m high. It is important to mention that during 1989–
1990, the catchment was closed to avoid cattle grazing
in order to become a natural reserve. Since then vege-
tation has developed, and an under storey of grass has
grown up. Therefore, the cover is much higher than
before and that of the surrounding area.
The watershed lies in a subtropical arid climate
where rainfall (200–300 mm per year) is charac-
terised by summer events of low duration (a few
hours) with high intensities. The response time of
the catchment is very short (less than one hour).
Four rainfall stations were available (Fig. 1), covering
homogeneously the whole basin. They are part of the
automatic network operating in the region since 1982
(Fernandez et al., 1988). Recorded events show that,
even at the catchment scale, the spatial variability of
rainfall is large. The streamflow was measured at the
outlet of the catchment up to 1994. A set of about 50
rainfall events was recorded and will be used in the
present study.
2.2. The ANSWERS model and its adaptation for the
Divisadero Largo catchment
The original version of the ANSWERS model was
designed to study the impact of management practices
on runoff and sediment transport for single design
storms (Beasley et al., 1980; Dillaha and Beasley,
1983). Later on, phosphorous (Amin Sichani, 1982;
Storm et al., 1988) and nitrogen (Dillaha et al., 1988)
transport were added to the model. At that time, it was
an event-based model. It was modified by Bouraoui
and Dillaha (1996) into a continuous model. This last
version, restricted to water transfer only, is used in the
present study. The computer code was extended to
handle the 6079 grid cells of 30 × 30 m 2 of the
application.
Hydrological processes represented in the
ANSWERS model can be summarised as follows.
After rainfall begins, precipitation is intercepted by
the vegetation canopy until the interception storage
157
potential is satisfied. Then, throughfall can be infil-
trated into the soil (Green and Ampt, 1911 model).
When the rainfall intensity exceeds the infiltration
capacity (Horton, 1940) or the soil reservoir is satu-
rated (saturation excess), water accumulates into
micro-depressions. Once the storage capacity of
micro-depressions exceeds, surface runoff overland
flow begins. Excess water is transferred to the channel
and routed to the outlet (Bras, 1990). Water in excess
of the field capacity can drain to the groundwater, if it
exists. In the interstorm period, water is allowed to
evaporate from the soil surface or to be transpired by
the vegetation (Richie, 1972).
The catchment is described as a set of square grid
cells, over which the hydrological properties are
assumed to be uniform. However, these characteristic
properties can vary from one cell to the other, taking
into account the spatial variability of topography, soil
and vegetation cover. The time evolution of vegeta-
tion characteristics and land use can also be accounted
for. Rainfall is described by measured hyetographs
and the rainfall distribution over the watershed is
taken into account.
In the context of the Divisadero Largo catchment,
one modification of the model was introduced to
represent the impervious nature of the subsoil (A.
Vargas-Aranibar, personal communication). The
Green and Ampt (1911) assumes that for longer
times, the infiltration capacity converges towards the
saturated hydraulic conductivity. This hypothesis is
valid for deep soils. When the subsoil is impervious,
water cannot drain freely and the soil reservoir is
progressively filled. Once it is filled, surface runoff
is generated. The ANSWERS model was, therefore,
modified to account for this process. Furthermore,
about 20% of water in excess of field capacity was
allowed to infiltrate in the subsoil and added to a pool,
available for sub-surface runoff. The latter can reach
the drainage network rapidly.
2.3. Input data for the model
2.3.1. Climatic and rainfall data
Daily potential evapotranspiration, used by the
ANSWERS model, is computed using mean daily
air temperature and daily incoming solar radiation.
These data were obtained from the Mendoza airport
meteorological station (information obtained from
158 I. Braud et al. / Journal of Hydrology 216 (1999) 155–171
Table 1
Characteristics of the various types of channel elements for the 30 m resolution
Channel type Number of upstream elements
Type 1 ⬎ 1200
Type 2 [501–1200]
Type 3 [151–500]
Type 4 [41–150]
Type 5 [6–40]
SMN-INTA and J. Morabito, INA-CRA). This station
is a representative of the desert conditions, which
prevail in the Divisadero Largo catchment.
Four rainfall stations are located within the catch-
ment (Fig. 1). These rain gauges are automatic sensors
with an auger system of 1 mm capacity. The station
sends a signal to the alert centre each time the auger is
filled, and a rainfall of 1 mm is recorded. Therefore,
the temporal resolution of the data increases with the
rainfall intensity. The maximum intensity recorded
from 1983 to 1994 was 276 mm h ⫺1 during 20 s on
14 February 1990. The structure of the ANSWERS
model, which can deal with irregular time steps
for the rainfall series and does not require the same
time step for all the stations, allowed us to directly
use the data recorded by the automatic system.
The rainfall fields were interpolated with the
Thiessen polygon method (Fig. 1). Therefore, each
cell of the grid was associated with one of the four
gauges.
2.3.2. Digital terrain model and drainage network
A digital elevation model (DEM) was digitised
from a contour map with 5 m intervals with a 30 ×
30 m 2 grid size (Hoefsloot et al., 1992). The vertical
resolution of the 1:5000 DEM was 1 m. The
watershed was discretized into 6079 30 × 30 m 2
cells. The altitudes ranged from 949 m at the outlet
(eastern part of the catchment) to 1421 m in the
western part of the catchment. The slope map of the
catchment was calculated using the SLOPE function
of the PC RASTER Package (Van Deursen and
Wesseling, 1992) using the average of 3 × 3 cell
windows. The WATERSH module was used to derive
a local flow direction map, and the map of a number of
upstream cells (‘‘Upstream Element map’’). Pixels
associated with an upstream element number higher
Width (m) Manning roughness coefficient
5 0.07
4 0.06
3 0.05
2 0.04
1 0.03
than six were considered as channel cells. The derived
drainage network (Fig. 2) is similar to the one that can
be observed in the field.
Five types of channel elements were defined and
their characteristics are given in Table 1. The
upstream part of the riverbed is made of smooth
rocks, whereas stones are present downstream.
Further, in the wider downstream channels, the
presence of vegetation reduces the flow velocity.
These channel characteristics explain the downstream
increase of the Manning coefficient.
Although Goodrich et al. (1997) showed the impor-
tance of the infiltration of water within riverbed chan-
nels for ephemeral flows, it is not considered in the
present study.
2.3.3. Soil characteristics
The geology of the Divisadero Largo catchment is
complex. A 30 m resolution geology map, derived by
Hoefsloot et al. (1992), shows the existence of eight
formations at the surface. Ligtenberg et al. (1992)
determined the soil retention and hydraulic conduc-
tivity curves of three of those formations: Quaternary,
Marine and Barrancas. They classified the other five
formations: Potrerillos, Cacheuta, Rio Blanco, Violet
Conglomerate and Divisadero Largo as quasi-
impervious, and gathered them in the same soil
type. Indeed, for all these formations, the thickness
of the soil is reduced to a few centimetres and their
saturated hydraulic conductivity is very low. Six soil
classes were taken as a basis for the ANSWERS
model. The values of the soil depth for the different
soil types were determined from in situ measurements
and information from other scientists working on the
catchment (M. Nave, personal communications). The
texture of the soils was mostly sandy. Total porosity
and fraction of coarse fragments were taken from the
work of Ligtenberg et al. (1992). The wilting point
 I. Braud et al. / Journal of Hydrology 216 (1999) 155–171 159

Fig. 2. Drainage network of the Divisadero Largo catchment with the various channel types defined as inputs of the ANSWERS model.

was taken from the literature and the field capacity
adjusted to reproduce the runoff volume (mentioned
later). The values of the saturated hydraulic conduc-
tivity were chosen such that the effective hydraulic
conductivity (taking the coarse fragments and the
influence of vegetation into account) was about
48 mm h ⫺1. This value corresponds to those obtained
on the quaternary and marine formations by Nave et
al. (1996) from infiltration tests performed with rain-
fall simulators (Nave, 1996). No measurement was
available for the first soil type (quasi-impervious
formations) and the value was calibrated (discussed
later). Other properties, like wetting front suction
were estimated using the pedo-transfer functions
proposed by default in ANSWERS (Bouraoui and
Dillaha, 1996). The main soil characteristics are listed
in Tables 2 and 3, and Fig. 3 presents their location
within the catchment.
2.3.4. Vegetation characteristics
A Landsat TM map of 22 February 1986 was
processed by Mulders et al. (1990b). A ratio vegeta-
tion index (RVI) was calculated and four classes of
vegetation defined corresponding to a percent cover-
age by the vegetation of 0%–5%, 5%–20%, 20%–
35% and ⬎ 35%, respectively. The month of Febru-
ary that falls in the middle of the rainy season corre-
sponds generally to the highest vegetation cover. The
four classes were taken as the basis for the four vege-
tation types defined in ANSWERS. The main charac-
teristics of these classes are summarised in Table 4.
Overland flow roughness coefficients for each of

Fig. 3. Map of the soil types used in the ANSWERS model.

160 I. Braud et al. / Journal of Hydrology 216 (1999) 155–171

Table 2
Characteristics of the soil types defined for the Divisadero Largo catchment

Soil type Depth Total Fraction of Field capacity Wilting point Saturated Wetting
(mm) porosity (–) coarse (fraction of (fraction of hydraulic front
fragments (%) saturation) saturation) conductivity suction (cm)
(mm h ⫺1)

1: Quasi-impervious 60 0.48 42 0.40 0.14 5.00 × 10 ⫺2 5.98

2: Quaternary I 300 0.48 42 0.40 0.14 65 5.98
3: Quaternary II 800 0.48 42 0.40 0.14 65 5.98
4: Marine I 100 0.49 10 0.40 0.14 55 5.33
5: Marine II 400 0.49 10 0.40 0.14 54 5.33
6: Barrancas 300 0.49 18 0.40 0.14 65 4.80

Table 3
Texture of the soil types defined for the Divisadero Largo catchment

1:Quasi-imprevious 2: Quaternary I 3: Quaternary II 4: Marine I 5: Marine II 6: Barrancas

Clay content (%) 1 1 1 1 1 1

Silt content (%) 6 6 6 12 12 7
Sand content (%) 93 93 93 87 87 92

Table 4
Characteristics of the vegetation types defined on the Divisadero Largo catchment

Vegetation type Coverage Leaf area Potential Manning coefficient Surface storage
(%) index interception for overland flow capacity (mm) a
(mm)

Type 1: 0%–5% 5 0.13 0.00 0.05 2

Type 2: 5%–20% 15 0.41 0.02 0.05 5
Type 3: 20%–35% 30 0.89 0.05 0.07 9
Type 4: ⬎ 35% 40 1.27 0.10 0.09 9
a
This parameter was specified for each vegetation type as required by the original version of the ANSWERS model. It was not used later in
the subsequent analysis because a surface storage capacity map was used instead. In this way, a value per grid cell defined according to the
vegetation type and slope of the cell was used.

the vegetation classes were taken from Bouraoui
(1995).
As mentioned previously, the watershed was
closed in 1989–1990. Since then, the vegetation has
recovered and an under-storey of grass was able to
develop. The image of 1986 was taken before the
closing of the catchment and will, therefore be more
representative of the 1983–1990 period. Unfortu-
nately, at the time of the study, no image representa-
tive of the post-closure period was available.
Therefore, the same image was used throughout the
whole study.
2.3.5. Surface storage capacity map
The surface storage capacity corresponds to the
storage by micro-relief at the surface of the soil.
Once this reservoir is filled, surface runoff can
occur. According to FAO standards, Ligtenberg et
al. (1992) had built a surface storage capacity map
with three levels: low, medium and high, which
were used in ANSWERS to define the surface storage
capacity of each grid cell. This map is a combination
of vegetation and slope information. Table 5
summarises the characteristics of these three classes.
It must also be mentioned that in 1989–1990, when
 I. Braud et al. / Journal of Hydrology 216 (1999) 155–171 161

Fig. 4. Observed versus modelled (left) runoff (mm) and (right) peak discharge (m 3 s ⫺1) for the year 1985 (five events).

the catchment was closed, some barriers were also
constructed in the upstream part of the catchment
(small dams of about 300 m 3, Königel, 1997). These
barriers retain water and sediments allowing the vege-
tation to recover. This would lead to an increase of the
surface storage capacity in these zones. This was not
taken into account in this first study, given the diffi-
culty to locate their exact position within the catch-
ment. However, they could contribute to the lowering
and delaying of the runoff, although they were
perhaps not located in the most critical areas (Königel,
1997).
2.3.6. Streamflow data
From 1983 to 1994, a sensor was installed at the
outlet of the catchment to measure the streamflow.
However, not all the floods were registered, especially
during the first years of the experiment. A hydrogen
bubble sensor was used to measure the streamflow
associated with a triangular shape of the river section.
A reduced model of the terrain and measurement
section was built in order to determine the stage–
discharge relationship. However, as most of the time
the river was dry, some problems were encountered
with the sensor (large inertia, obstruction of the

Table 5
Characteristics of the surface storage capacity classes

Surface storage capacity Slope (%) Vegetation coverage (%) Value of the
surface storage
reservoir (mm)

Low ⬎ 15% ⬍ 20% 2

20%–35%
⬎ 35%
Medium 10%–15% p 20% 5
20%–35%
⬎ 35%
High 0%–5% 20%–35% 9
⬎ 35%
162 I. Braud et al. / Journal of Hydrology 216 (1999) 155–171

Fig. 5. Comparison of observed (—) and modelled (…) hydrographs for four selected events. Events of 17 January 1985 and 22 November
1985 belong to the calibration set of events.

bubble system), leading to large uncertainties on the available data which could be used for model
registered flows, especially the lowest ones. For some verification.
storms, it was obvious that some problems occurred The following criteria were calculated for runoff
(oscillations in the hydrographs). Over the period volume and peak discharge using the 33 ‘‘reliable’’
1983–1994, 49 hydrographs were available. Sixteen storms, in order to quantify model performance:
doubtful storms were discarded from the statistical
analysis, comparing model and observations, leading mean bias B : B ˆ Y mod ⫺Y obs ; …1†
to a set of 33 ‘‘reliable’’ storms.
mean absolute error MAE:

1X n
2.4. Assessment of model performance MAE ˆ 兩 Y ⫺Y 兩; …2†
n iˆ1 imod iobs
The model was run on a continuous basis and was
initialised only once, at the beginning of the simula- P
n
…Yimod ⫺Yiobs †2
tion period. Model performance was assessed using efficiency E : E ˆ 1⫺ iˆ1
; …3†
runoff hydrographs for selected flood events. As the Pn
…Yiobs ⫺Y obs †2
riverbed was dry most of the time, it was the only iˆ1
 I. Braud et al. / Journal of Hydrology 216 (1999) 155–171 163

Fig. 6. Top panel: observed versus modelled (left) runoff (mm) and (right) peak discharge (m 3 s ⫺1) for the whole data set (33 events). Bottom
panel: comparison of observed and modelled distributions of (left) runoff (mm) and (right) peak discharge (m 3 s ⫺1).

root mean square error RMSE: 3. Calibration and validation of the model
q
1 3.1. Calibration of the model
RMSE ˆ …Yimod ⫺Yiobs †2 ; …4†
n
The year 1985 was chosen for the first sensitivity
tests and calibration of the model. During this year,
regressionimod ˆ Slope × Yiobs recorded floods covered various possible scenarios,
with two examples of floods separated by three days
⫹Intercept with coefficient of determination R2 ; (17 and 20 January1985) and one day (21 and 22
January 1985), and another flood occurring after a
where Y stands either for runoff volume or peak long drying period (15 November 1985). The climate
discharge, Yiobs and Yimod the observed and modelled and rainfall data described in Section 2 were used as
values, and Y obs and Y mod their mean, and n the number input variables. The parameters presented in Section 2
of storms considered (n ˆ 33). were used with a 30 m grid resolution for these
164 I. Braud et al. / Journal of Hydrology 216 (1999) 155–171

Fig. 7. Variation (%) from the reference simulation (rainfall calculated using the four gauges interpolated with the Thiessen polygons) for
rainfall (top), runoff (middle) and peak discharge (bottom), when uniform rainfall taken at rain-gauge 1100 (K), 1400 ( ⫹ ), 1500 ( × ) or 2000
(S) was considered.

simulations. The time step used in the simulations was
10 s.
According to Bouraoui and Dillaha (1996),
ANSWERS does not require calibration, and thus
can be used for ungauged catchments. Bouraoui
(1995) provides tables for the main parameters of
the models in the case of agricultural catchments.
However, little information was provided related to
natural semi-arid catchments. Therefore, unmeasured
parameters such as soil field capacity, saturated
hydraulic conductivity of the quasi-impervious soil
type and roughness coefficients for the channel flow
were adjusted. However, this calibration was reduced
to a minimum and was only performed heuristically
by testing the influence of some key parameters. The
saturated hydraulic conductivity of the quasi-impervious
soil type was set to a value of 0.05 mm h ⫺1. A lower
value did not modify the results and a higher value
suppressed the rapid observed peaks. The field capacity
was adjusted to get a correct prediction of the volume.
 I. Braud et al. / Journal of Hydrology 216 (1999) 155–171 165

Fig. 8. Simulated (…) hydrographs for the storm of 17 January 1985 when uniform rainfall from gauge 1100, 1400, 1500 and 2000 is
considered. The full line is the reference hydrograph obtained with the distributed rainfall.

Figs. 4(a) and (b) show the modelled versus

observed volume and peak discharge, respectively.
Table 6 The volume was, in general, overestimated and the
Statistical comparison of modelled and observed runoff and peak peak discharge underestimated. However, the model
discharge was able to reproduce the observed abrupt flow
Statistical criteria Runoff Peak
increases (Fig. 5(a)). Qualitatively at least, the
volume discharge model performed correctly. The same parameters
(mm) (m 3 s ⫺1) were then kept and the model validated on the
whole data set: 1983–1994.
Bias ⫺0.27 ⫺2.79
Mean absolute error 2.34 6.31
Efficiency 0.60 0.46 3.2. Validation of the model
Root mean square error 0.63 2.34
Slope 0.52 0.33 The criteria defined in Section 2.4 are presented in
Intercept 1.91 4.14 Table 6. Fig. 6 shows the corresponding scatterograms
Coefficient of 0.61 0.61
and distributions.
determination
The scatter was quite large, but some of the
166 I. Braud et al. / Journal of Hydrology 216 (1999) 155–171

Fig. 9. Variation (%) from the reference simulation (use of the soil classification map) for runoff (top) and peak discharge (bottom) when
uniform soil type was used over the whole basin: soil 1 (triangle), soil 6 ( ⫹ ), soil 4 ( × ) and soil 5 (diamond). Variations of ⫺100% were
obtained when no runoff was predicted while the reference simulation indicates the presence of runoff.

hydrographs were reproduced correctly (Fig. 5, see
also Braud, 1998). In general, peak discharge was
underestimated especially for the largest events,
which were not well reproduced by the model. This
could be explained by the smoothing effect of using a
DEM of 30 m. Indeed, the maximum slope in the
model was about 49%, whereas some hillslopes
were almost vertically positioned into the catchment.
Furthermore, it was observed that there is always a
small flow in the intermediate part of the catchment.
This flow does not reach the outlet because it infil-
trates in the most pervious soils situated in the outlet
zone. This fact is not accounted for by the model, where
it is assumed that the water height within the river is
zero at the beginning of the storm. This non-zero flow
could contribute to the largest and quickest peak flows.
In general, when there were two events separated
by one day, the model tended to overestimate the first
one and underestimate the second.
Furthermore, the simulated storms of the years
1991–1994 started, in general, before the observation.
Several reasons might explain this discrepancy: (i)
after 16 November 1990, the rain gauge 1100 was
no longer working and was replaced by station
1500. This could lead to an erroneous representation
of rainfall, (ii) after 1990, the catchment was closed
and the vegetation had developed. This was not taken
into account because only a vegetation map from 1986
was available. The increase of vegetation could delay
the beginning of the runoff. The influence of barriers
aiming at retaining water, built in the upper part of the
catchment in the year 1989–1990 would be identical,
and (iii) the deterioration of the sensor measuring the
streamflow.
Nevertheless, the results were considered satisfac-
tory because the main features of the floods on the
catchment could be captured, especially the rapid
increase of streamflow, shortly after a high intensity
event. Given the uncertainties with the measured
streamflow, further calibration of the model was not
required. It was assumed that the model had captured
the main physical processes leading to large floods. It
was used as a reference to study the influence of the
variability of inputs on modelled hydrographs.
 I. Braud et al. / Journal of Hydrology 216 (1999) 155–171 167

Fig. 10. Contribution (%) of the rain gauge Thiessen areas to the runoff (top) and peak discharge (bottom) for 20 selected storms in 1985. In
these simulations, rainfall from a given gauge was applied to its associated Thiessen polygon area and set to zero elsewhere.

4. Study of the influence of the variability of
rainfall and surface properties on the generation of
surface runoff
The sensitivity study was conducted using the data
from 1985. A reference simulation using all the maps
described in Section 2, and the distributed rainfall was
defined. Then, different simulations were obtained by
changing one parameter and keeping the others
constant. Twenty events of 1985, where the ANSWERS
model produced runoff, were selected for this purpose.
For rainfall, four simulations were performed using
uniform rainfall over the whole catchment succes-
sively from rain gauges 1100, 1400, 1500 and 2000.
Fig. 7 shows the results in terms of percent of
variation from the reference simulation for the 20
events. Fig. 7 clearly demonstrates the high variability
of rainfall, the average on the catchment varying by
more than 100%. The consequence on runoff and peak
discharge is of the same order of magnitude. Fig. 8
illustrates the consequence on simulated hydrographs
for the storm of 17 January 1985.
Similarly, simulations with uniform soil types were
performed. Fig. 9 shows the percent variations of
runoff and peak discharge. Variations of ⫺100%
were obtained when no runoff was predicted, while
the reference simulation indicated the presence of
runoff. For deeper soils (soil types 5 and 6), no runoff
was produced except for the last three events. Varia-
tions were larger than 100% when soil type 1 (quasi-
impervious) was used. Although soil type 4 has a
relatively high saturated hydraulic conductivity, the
variations for some storms were significant. This is
mainly owing to the saturation of the soil, which is
shallow. These tests show the importance of the quasi-
impervious zone on runoff generation.
To further illustrate such an importance, additional
simulations were conducted. Rainfall was set to zero
everywhere, except on the Thiessen polygon asso-
ciated with each rain gauge. The contribution of
each ‘‘gauge’’ area to the total runoff could, therefore,
be assessed (although total runoff was not exactly the
sum of the contribution of each gauge area). Fig. 10
shows the results in the form of barplots. The zone
168 I. Braud et al. / Journal of Hydrology 216 (1999) 155–171

Fig. 11. Variation (%) from the reference simulation (use of vegetation and surface storage capacity maps) for runoff (top) and peak discharge
(bottom) when uniform vegetation class 0%–5% (triangle), uniform storage capacity of 2 mm ( ⫹ ) or 9 mm ( × ) were used.

associated with gauge 1400, representing only 26% of
the catchment area, contributed to more than 80% of
the runoff in each case and sometimes to almost all the
runoff. This gauge area contained all the quasi-imper-
vious soils confirming the importance of this area on
runoff generation.
The results also showed that the knowledge of the
rainfall field on this area was crucial to get a correct
prediction of the runoff. Analysis of all the simulated
hydrographs showed that some storms were correctly
reproduced, others were underestimated and some
others overestimated (Braud, 1998). This could be
explained by a bad representation of the rainfall
field on the quasi-impervious area. Thus, affecting
the quasi impervious cells to the wrong rain gauge
may cause large discrepancies in the runoff volume
and timing. One recommendation could be to put
more gauges on quasi-impervious areas to get a
more precise description of the rainfall field in these
zones.
Other tests were performed to assess the influence
of vegetation cover and surface storage capacity.
Simulations were conducted with uniform vegetation
corresponding to the 0%–5% coverage, and constant
surface storage capacity of 2 and 9 mm. Results are
presented in Fig. 11, and show that the modification of
the vegetation coverage did not influence the runoff
very much. The role of surface storage capacity was
more important in delaying or advancing the begin-
ning of runoff. With the 9 mm uniform value, the
runoff volume and peak discharge were also signifi-
cantly decreased.
In order to test the advantage of using a continuous
model, uniform initial moisture conditions corre-
sponding to the extreme values (i.e. wilting point or
field capacity) were prescribed at the beginning of
each storm event. A test was also performed with
75% of the field capacity. Using the wilting point as
initial condition only modified the results for the
storms occurring within five days after another
storm (this was the largest interval in the storm
samples) (see Fig. 12). Results show that the wilting
point was the initial moisture status of most rainfall
events in the reference simulation, except for the
 I. Braud et al. / Journal of Hydrology 216 (1999) 155–171 169

Fig. 12. Variation (%) from the reference simulation (initialisation of soil moisture calculated by ANSWERS) for runoff (top) and peak
discharge (bottom) when an initialisation at the wilting point (triangle), field capacity ( ⫹ ) or 75% of field capacity ( × ) was used prior to each
rainfall event.

storms occurring within five days after another rain- 5. Conclusions

fall event. For these events, runoff volume and peak
discharge were modified by about 10%. The use of a
continuous model was, therefore, valuable for these
events, even if the induced change in runoff volume
and peak discharge was much less than when rainfall
or soil type variability was considered. With 75% of
the field capacity as initial soil moisture, the increase
in runoff was of up to 80%–90%, and more than 200%
when the field capacity was used.
Finally, a set of tests was conducted to evaluate the
influence of slope (average slope of nine pixels versus
maximum slope, average slope multiplied by 1.5),
Manning roughness coefficients of channel elements
(multiplied or divided by 2), channel width (divided
by 2) on runoff. In general, the changes in runoff
volume were small. The changes in peak discharge
could reach 50% with changes in the roughness coef-
ficients of channel elements and channel widths. The
main influence was to modify the starting time of
runoff.
The work presented in this article was a first
attempt to apply a continuous and distributed model
on a catchment of the Andean Precordillera. The high
temporal and spatial variability of rainfall, the discon-
tinuous nature of the streamflow, and the spatial varia-
bility of surface properties, especially soil types,
complicated the modelling work. The distributed
ANSWERS model was shown to perform satisfacto-
rily on this catchment. Its distributed nature proved to
be valuable for a correct representation of the sharp
and rapid increase of the streamflows observed at the
outlet. Silburn and Connolly (1995), and Connolly
and Silburn (1995) also reported good performance
of the ANSWERS model on a pasture catchment in
Australia.
The major role of spatial variability of rainfall and
of soil types on runoff generation was shown. The
influence of a quasi-impervious area located in the
middle of the catchment was found to explain most
170 I. Braud et al. / Journal of Hydrology 216 (1999) 155–171
of the runoff volume and peak discharge, and was also
responsible for the rapid increase in streamflow.
Vegetation coverage and surface storage capacity
influenced runoff volume and the time at which the
runoff begins. A similar impact was observed for
Manning roughness coefficients and channel width.
Finally, the use of a continuous model, allowing a
direct evaluation of initial moisture condition was
valuable for storms occurring within five days after
another storm.
The evolution of the vegetation cover, associated
with the closure of the catchment in 1990, could not
be taken into account in the present work, leading to
poorer performance of the model after 1990. Connolly
et al. (1997) showed the influence of vegetation cover
on infiltration and runoff. A study of vegetation cover
role on the Divisadero Largo catchment hydrology is
planned using Landsat TM images from years
succeeding 1986. A validation of the evaporation
component of the model will be performed. As no
direct measurement is available, Landsat TM images
could provide indirect information on low and high
evaporation rates (Franks and Beven, 1997)
Further work is also needed to better assess the
spatial variability of rainfall fields, and especially
the characteristics of areas covered by intense rainfall
cells. This condition, combined with a precise knowl-
edge of quasi-impervious areas, is necessary to
achieve significant progress in the prediction of runoff
in this region.
Acknowledgements
This study was funded by the French Centre
National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)
through a grant which allowed the first author to
spend eight months at INA-CRA in Mendoza, Argen-
tina where the work was performed. Jose Zuluaga,
Massimo Menenti and Bernard Seguin are thanked
for their help in building the research project and
their advises during its realisation. Luis Fornero,
Jaap Huygen, Patricia Lopez, Jose Morabito, Marcella
Nave, Sara Rodriguez, Adrian Vargas-Aranibar,
Alberto Vitch contributed to the study through useful
discussions or by providing some of the data used in
the work. Two anonymous reviewers helped improv-
ing the quality of the manuscript.
References
Amin Sichani, S., 1982. Modelling phosphorous transport in surface
runoff from agricultural watersheds, PhD thesis, Purdue Univer-
sity.
Beasley, D.B., Huggins, F., Monke, E.J., 1980. ANSWERS: a
model for watershed planning. Trans. of the ASAE 23 (4),
938–944.
Bras, R.L., 1990. Hydrology: an introduction to hydrological
sciences ISBN 0-201-05922-3. Addison-Wesley Series in
Civil Engineering, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Braud, I., 1998. Hydrological studies using remote sensing and GIS
in the region of Mendoza (Argentina) – modelling the hydro-
logical cycle of a small catchment of the Andean region using a
continuous distributed model (ANSWERS), Activity report 01/
09/97 to 30/04/98. Available from LTHE, BP 53, 38041 Greno-
ble Cedex 9, France, pp.120.
Bouraoui, F., 1995. Development of a continuous, physically-based
distributed parameter, non-point source model, PhD thesis,
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
Bouraoui, F., Dillaha, T.A., 1996. ANSWERS 2000: runoff and
sediment transport model. J. Environ. Enginee. 122, 493–502.
Connolly, R.D., Silburn, D.M., 1995. Distributed parameter hydrol-
ogy model (ANSWERS) applied to a range of catchment scales
using rainfall simulator data II: Application to spatially uniform
catchments. J. Hydrol. 172, 105–125.
Connolly, R.D., Ciesiolka, C.A.A., Silburn, D.M., Caroll, C., 1997.
Distributed parameter hydrology model (ANSWERS) applied to
a range of catchment scales using rainfall simulator data IV:
evaluating pasture catchment hydrology. J. Hydrol. 201, 311–
328.
Dillaha, T.A., Beasley, D.B., 1983. Distributed parameter model-
ling of sediment movement and particle size distribution. Trans.
A.S.A.E. 26 (6), 1777.
Dillaha, T.A., Heatwole, C.D., Bennett, M.R., Mostaghimi, S.,
Shanholz, V.O., Ross, B.B., 1988. Water quality modelling
for non-point source pollution control planning: nutrient trans-
port, prepared for the Virginia Division of Soil and Water
Conservation, Report No. SW-88-02, Department of Agricul-
tural Engineering, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University, Blacksburg, VA.
Fernandez, P.C., Roby, H.O., Tarantola, D., 1988. Sistema de alerta
hidrologica aluvional: 6 años de experiencia. INCyTH-CRA,
Mendoza, Argentina, pp. 15.
Fernandez, P.C., Rodriguez, S., Fornero, L., 1997. Regional
analysis of convective storms achieved from dense hydro-
meteorological network data in an arid zone of the southern
hemisphere. Proceedings of the Postojna, Slovenia Confer-
ence Regional Hydrology: Concepts and models for Sustain-
able Water Resources Management. IAHS Pub N. 246, pp
231–239.
Franks, S.W., Beven, K.J., 1997. Estimation of evapotranspiration
at the landscape scale: a fuzzy disaggregation approach. Water
Resour. Res. 33 (12), 2929–2938.
Goodrich, D.C., Lane, L.J., Shillito, M., Miller, S.N., 1997. Linear-
ity of basin response as a function of scale in a semiarid
watershed. Water Resour. Res. 33 (12), 2951–2965.
 I. Braud et al. / Journal of Hydrology 216 (1999) 155–171
Green, W.H., Ampt, G.A., 1911. Studies on soil physics. J. Agric.
Sci. 4, 1–24.
Hoefsloot, F., de Wit, M., Menenti, M., Fernandez, P.C., 1992.
Modelling the rainfall-runoff process of a catchment in the
Andean Precordillera, Mendoza, Argentine The Winand Staring
Center, Wageningen. pp. 40.
Horton, R.E., 1940. An approach towards a physical interpretation
of infiltration capacity. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 5, 399–417.
Königel, C., 1997. Barriers in the catchment of the Divisadero
Largo, Mendoza, Argentine: positioning of flood prevention
reservoirs in a semi-arid environment using a rainfall-runoff
model, activity report The Winand Staring Center,
Wageningen. pp. 27.
Ligtenberg, A., van Rijswijk, J., Menenti, M., Fernandez, P., 1992.
Runoff Research Divisadero Largo: an attempt to calibrate the
soil water model SWAMIN for a catchment in the Andean
Precordillera The Winand Staring Center, Wageningen. pp. 51.
Mulders, C.W.B., Fernandez, P.C., Kabat, P., Fornero, L.A., 1990.
Rainfall-runoff modelling of Divisadero Largo catchment,
Mendoza, Argentina The Winand Staring Center,
Wageningen. pp. 44.
Mulders, C.W.B., Leguizamo, S., Menenti, M., Fornero, L.A., 1990.
Derivation of CN values by combination of remote sensing and
field data for Divisadero Largo catchment, Mendoza, Argentina
The Winand Staring Center, Wageningen.
Nave, M.R., 1996. Análisis de la infiltración y su relación con los
modelos de lluvia-caudal y con el manejo de cuenca, Informe de
avance, beca de perfeccionamiento, Centro Regional de
171
Investigaciones Cientificas y Tecnicas (CRICYT), Mendoza,
Argentina.
Nave, M., Pedrani, A., Vitch, A.I.J., Mariani, A., 1996. Caracter-
ización del proceso de infiltración en el Piedemonte Mendocino,
Monografia, XVI Congreso Nacional delAgua, Argentina.
Richie, J.T., 1972. A model for predicting evapotranspiration from a
row crop with incomplete cover. Water Resour. Res. 8 (5),
1204–1213.
Sharma, K.D., 1993. Distributed numerical modelling of runoff and
soil erosion using Thematic Mapper data and G.I.S. activity
report The Winand Staring Center, Wageningen. pp. 35.
Sharma, K.D., Menenti, M., Huygen, J., Fernandez, P.C., 1996.
Distributed rainfall-runoff modelling in an arid region using
Thematic Mapper data and a geographical information system.
Hydrological Processes 10 (9), 1229–1242.
Sharma, K.D., Menenti, M., Huygen, J., Vich, A., 1996. Modeling
spatial sediment delivery in an arid region using Thematic
Mapper data and GIS. Trans. ASAE 39 (2), 551–557.
Silburn, D.M., Connolly, R.D., 1995. Distributed parameter hydrol-
ogy model (ANSWERS) applied to a range of catchment scales
using rainfall simulator data II: Application to spatially uniform
catchments. J. Hydrol. 172, 87–104.
Storm, D.E., Dillaha, T.A., Mostaghimi, S., Shanholz, V.O., 1988.
Modelling phosphorus transport in surface runoff. Trans. ASAE.
31, 117–127.
Van Deursen, W.P.A., Wesseling, C., 1992. The PC RASTER pack-
age, Department of Physical Geography, The University of
Utrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 88.