Using hydrological simulation to evaluate the accuracy of satellite-based and reanalysis precipitation products always suffer from a large uncertainty. This study evaluates four widely used global precipitation products with high spatial and temporal resolutions [i.e., AgMERRA (AgMIP modern-Era Retrospective Analysis for Research and Applications), MSWEP (Multi-Source Weighted-Ensemble Precipitation), PERSIANN-CDR (Precipitation Estimation from Remotely Sensed Information using Artificial Neural Networks-Climate Data Record), and TMPA (Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission 3B42 Version7)] against gauge observations with six statistical metrics over Mekong River Basin (MRB). Furthermore, the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT), a widely used semi-distributed hydrological model, is calibrated using different precipitation inputs. Both model performance and uncertainties of parameters and prediction have been quantified. The following findings were obtained: (1) The MSWEP and TMPA precipitation products have good accuracy with higher CC, POD, and lower ME and RMSE, and the AgMERRA precipitation estimates perform better than PERSIANN-CDR in this rank; and (2) out of the six different climate regions of MRB, all six metrics are worse than that in the whole MRB. The AgMERRA can better reproduce the occurrence and contributions at different precipitation densities, and the MSWEP has the best performance in Cwb, Cwa, Aw, and Am regions that belong to the low latitudes. (3) Daily streamflow predictions obtained using MSWEP precipitation estimates are better than those simulated by other three products in term of both the model performance and parameter uncertainties; and (4) although MSWEP better captures the precipitation at different intensities in different climatic regions, the performance can still be improved, especially in the regions with higher altitude.

The hydrological model is the primary tool for regional water resources management, allocation, and prediction. However, these models always suffer from large uncertainties from multiple sources. Therefore, it is necessary to conduct an uncertainty analysis before performing hydrological simulation. Sequential Uncertainty Fitting (SUFI-2), Parameter Solution (ParaSol), Generalized Likelihood Uncertainty Estimation (GLUE), and Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) integrated with the SWAT-CUP software were used to calibrate the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) model and quantify the parameter sensitivity and prediction uncertainty of the SWAT in the Lancang River (LR) Basin, which is located in the southwest of China. This model was calibrated and validated using the four algorithms both at the daily scale, and the optimal simulation results derived by the four methods showed that the SWAT model performed well over the Yunjinghong station with Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency coefficient (NSE) and coefficient of determination (R²) values greater than 0.8 both in the calibration (1975 to 1989) and validation (1990 to 2004) periods. Among the four algorithms, the ParaSol algorithm produced the best simulation result at the daily scale with NSE values of 0.89 and 0.90 for the calibration and validation periods, respectively. Furthermore, the ParaSol algorithm has the greatest proportion of simulations (94%) with an NSE greater than 0.5. Parameter sensitivity analysis results demonstrated that the four methods all can be used for parameter sensitivity analysis in streamflow simulation, and they all identified that the base flow factor for bank storage (ALPHA_BNK) and effective hydraulic conductivity in the main channel alluvium (CH_K2) were more sensitive. The uncertainty analysis of model parameters showed that the parameter 95PPU (95% prediction uncertainty) width yielded by the ParaSol algorithm was the smallest compared with that of the other methods, followed by PSO, SUFI-2, and GLUE. The uncertainty analysis of the model simulation indicated that the SUFI-2 and PSO methods can achieve satisfactory results (with P-factor > 0.7 and R-factor < 1.5) at the daily scale; among them, SUFI-2 (P-factor = 0.93, R-factor = 1.17) performed much better than PSO (P-factor = 0.78, R-factor = 1.14). In general, by comparing its evaluation criteria (NSE, R², RE, P-factor, and R-factor) to other methods, ParaSol stood out as the most efficient tool for model calibration. However, SUFI-2 remains the most robust method to perform uncertainty analysis considering its uncertainties of model structure, model inputs, and parameters. This study provides insight into hydrological simulation of the LR Basin using the appropriate algorithm to calibrate the model and implement the uncertainty analysis.

In this study, 6 widely used precipitation products APHRODITE, CPC_UNI_PRCP, CN05.1, PERSIANN-CDR, Princeton Global Forcing (PGF), and TRMM 3B42 V7 (TMPA), were evaluated against gauge observations (CMA data) from 1998 to 2014, and applied to streamflow simulation over the Upper Yellow River basin (UYRB), using 4 hydrological models (DWBM, RCCC-WBM, GR4J, and VIC). The relative membership degree (u), as the comprehensive evaluation index in the hydrological evaluation, was calculated by the optimum fuzzy model. The results showed that the spatial pattern of precipitation from the CMA dataset and the other 6 precipitation products were very consistent with each other. The satellite-derived rainfall products (SDFE), like PSERSIANN-CDR and TMPA, depicted considerably finer and more detailed spatial heterogeneity. The SDFE and reanalysis (RA) products could estimate the monthly precipitation very well at both gauge and basin-average scales. The runoff simulation results indicated that the APHRODITE and TMPA were superior to the other 4 precipitation datasets, obtaining much higher scores, with average u values of 0.88 and 0.77. The precipitation estimation products tended to show better performance in streamflow simulation at the downstream hydrometric stations. In terms of performance of hydrological models, the RCCC–WBM model showed the best potential for monthly streamflow simulation, followed by the DWBM. It indicated that the monthly models were more flexible than daily conceptual or distributed models in hydrological evaluation of SDFE or RA products, and that the difference in precipitation estimates from various precipitation datasets were more influential in the GR4J and VIC models.