remote sensing

Article
Evaluation of the Radar QPE and Rain Gauge Data
Merging Methods in Northern China
Qingtai Qiu 1 , Jia Liu 1, *, Jiyang Tian 1 , Yufei Jiao 1 , Chuanzhe Li 1 , Wei Wang 1,2 and Fuliang Yu 1
1 State Key Laboratory of Simulation and Regulation of Water Cycle in River Basin, China Institute of Water
Resources and Hydropower Research, Beijing 100038, China; [email protected] (Q.Q.);
[email protected] (J.T.); [email protected] (Y.J.); [email protected] (C.L.); [email protected] (W.W.);
[email protected] (F.Y.)
2 College of Hydrology and Water Resources, Hohai University, Nanjing 210098, China
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +86-15010443860




Received: 30 December 2019; Accepted: 21 January 2020; Published: 22 January 2020


Abstract: Radar-rain gauge merging methods have been widely used to produce high-quality
precipitation with fine spatial resolution by combing the advantages of the rain gauge observation
and the radar quantitative precipitation estimation (QPE). Different merging methods imply a specific
choice on the treatment of radar and rain gauge data. In order to improve their applicability,
significant studies have focused on evaluating the performances of the merging methods. In this
study, a categorization of the radar-rain gauge merging methods was proposed as: (1) Radar bias
adjustment category, (2) radar-rain gauge integration category, and (3) rain gauge interpolation
category for a total of six commonly used merging methods, i.e., mean field bias (MFB), regression
inverse distance weighting (RIDW), collocated co-kriging (CCok), fast Bayesian regression kriging
(FBRK), regression kriging (RK), and kriging with external drift (KED). Eight different storm events
were chosen from semi-humid and semi-arid areas of Northern China to test the performance of the
six methods. Based on the leave-one-out cross validation (LOOCV), conclusions were obtained that
the integration category always performs the best, the bias adjustment category performs the worst,
and the interpolation category ranks between them. The quality of the merging products can be a
function of the merging method that is affected by both the quality of radar QPE and the ability of the
rain gauge to capture small-scale rainfall features. In order to further evaluate the applicability of the
merging products, they were then used as the input to a rainfall-runoff model, the Hybrid-Hebei
model, for flood forecasting. It is revealed that a higher quality of the merging products indicates a
better agreement between the observed and the simulated runoff.

Keywords: weather radar quantitative precipitation estimation; rain gauge; radar-rain gauge merging;
leave-one-out cross validation; verification

1. Introduction
Precipitation is a key driving component for hydrological water cycle processes at regional and
global scales. A catchment reacts very specifically to intense rainfall due to its steep slopes and shallow
soils, and precipitation data with a high spatial and temporal distribution is critical for forecasting
flash flooding events [1]. These events invariably have the characteristics of high intensity and sudden
occurrence, and under climate change, the needs for high resolution and accurate rainfall data have
increased, particularly because effective hydrological forecasting depends greatly on precipitation
accuracy [2–4]. Rain gauges can measure precipitation very accurately at a point scale, but we would
need a dense network of instruments to ascertain the rainfall intensity at local/regional scales because
of its high variability. In a short-time flash flood simulation, the spatial representatives of the rain

Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 363; doi:10.3390/rs12030363 www.mdpi.com/journal/remotesensing

Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 363 2 of 25

gauge and the accurate representation of spatial rainfall variability in the surrounding area need to be
considered [5,6]. High-resolution precipitation based on rain gauge data are usually geometrically
interpolated from a limited number of observation points using geographic information systems (GIS).
Compared with a rain gauge, a quantitative precipitation estimation (QPE), based on the weather
radar, has a primary advantage because it provides very high spatial and temporal resolution rainfall
information, making it very suitable for hydrological modeling [7,8]. With the development of weather
radar over the past 60 years, QPE, with its very high spatial and temporal resolutions, can accurately
detect the location of precipitation, and can be applied to practical hydrological operations such as
flood forecasting [9,10]. However, an error-free radar QPE is not possible due to various sources of
error, such as indirect precipitation measurement, the Z-R relationship, being above the ground, beam
shielding, and ground clutter, which result in range degradation [8,11,12]. Preserving the high spatial
accuracy of rainfall in radar QPEs remains a challenge for meteorologists. This has been the case since
the 1940s, when the potential for measuring precipitation with high spatial and temporal distributions
based on weather radar was realized [13]. With the advantage of radar to estimate the spatial pattern
and rain gauge data to obtain the correct point value, a combined product based on radar QPE and
rain gauge data has significant potential for achieving superior rainfall estimations [14,15].
The concept of achieving high-resolution precipitation estimations by merging QPE and rain gauge
data has resulted in proposals of numerous merging methods, and different ways of categorizing these
methods have been applied [16]. An additional correction factor is the most commonly investigated
and is currently being used by many national meteorological services due to its simplicity [17]. With
the development of these interpolation methods, some studies have attempted to interpolate point
rain gauge values with a variogram, which represents the spatial association of radar fields [18].
Sharon et al. (2015) found a clear difference between geostatistical and non-geostatistical methods,
where the geostatistical methods attempt to use the variogram to represent the spatial bias and
error variance of the rainfall field [19]. In a review, McKee (2015) adopted a viewpoint proposed
by Wang (2013) that such merging methods generally achieve merging precipitation through either
bias minimization methods or error variance reduction methods [20,21]. An integration method was
recently proposed with the aim of minimizing data uncertainty [22]. When considering these merging
methods, a better, application-oriented categorization is necessary.
Despite the research on this study, most of the studies have focused on evaluating the feasibility
of the applied merging techniques and measuring the performance of the merged rainfall estimates
against the rain gauge observation and radar estimates. Few studies have attempted to compare the
results from various merging categories and have instead focused on large scale applications [23,24].
Although the impact of limited rain gauge data cannot be neglected in the merging performance
when using rain gauge data for ground truthing, many studies have shown that more rain gauges
across the catchment can increase the chances of capturing rainfall features, while fewer rain gauges
may miss small convective cells [25]. To identify the commonly used merging techniques with better
performances, many inter-comparison studies have focused on the performances of these methods,
including the applied merging details of the type of method, spatiotemporal resolutions, and the
better performance methods identified in previous work. Generally, the performances of different
merging methods in most studies are assessed based on accuracy measures by comparing merged
estimates against rain gauge observation through cross validation [26], but recently, some studies
have attempted to evaluate the radar-rain gauge merging methods by comparing the hydrological
performances resulting from these methods [27].
High-resolution precipitation data have been used in various types of hydrological studies, and the
improvement of simulated hydrological dynamics using radar-based QPE has been highlighted [28–30].
It should be noted that in spite of the residual errors often remaining, these merging products have
significant uses in hydrological applications, particularly when forecasting flash floods or extreme
events [31]. When merging for flood forecasting, the application of high resolution and accurate
precipitation at fine spatiotemporal scales presents some challenges, such as (1) preserving small-scale
Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 363 3 of 25

features (e.g., convective), (2) density of rain gauges across mountain basins, and (3) fitness of the
hydrology model for the local catchment. With regard to applying flood forecasting at piedmont plain
scales, it is therefore critical to consider these factors when examining the performances of different
interpolated precipitation models and their ability to deal with challenges in flood forecasting [32].
In this study, the potential of flood forecasting with high-resolution precipitation was described,
including its variability and uncertainty regarding less clarity. For hourly precipitation, few studies have
focused on different interpolations regarding possible covariates over the catchments in semi-humid
and semi-arid climates. Evaluating the performance of both radar-based and rain-gauge-based
precipitation produced in the hydrological model can thus not only help to understand its physical
processes, but also its function as an indirect measure to assess the accuracy of the rainfall input.
Although many merging methods of different categories are available, little research has been
conducted to compare their performances and the applications driving hydrological models. In
addition to choosing a reliable radar-rain gauge merging method to obtain high resolution and
accurate precipitation data for the study area, the objective of this research was also to assess the
detailed performances of different quality merging data in flash flood forecasting. In this study, we
aimed to assess how different rain gauge observations, merged with radar data, leads to both better
high-resolution precipitation resolutions and improved hydrological applications, thereby further
enhancing the potential benefit of flash flood forecasting.

2. Methods

2.1. Radar-Rain Gauge Merging Methods

The potential of high spatial and temporal resolution precipitation based on weather radar is
known. Hence, different merging methods have been proposed, and are generally classified as bias
reduction and error variance minimization [33]. Identifying the spatial correlation in the error structure
model is the most important step in the merging process. A categorization similar to a starting point
and refined based upon a theoretical categorization was adopted by Wang et al. (2013), who also
proposed the following (Table 1): First, a radar bias adjustment methods focusing on bias adjustment of
radar estimates; second, radar-rain gauge integration methods, undertaking a true integration of both
radar precipitation and rain gauge data; and, third, rain gauge interpolation methods using different
interpolation methods with the radar spatial association as additional information [21].

Table 1. Categories of radar-rain gauge merging, the merging methods, and their abbreviations used to
derive the data.

Category Merging Method Abbreviation

Mean field bias MFB
Radar bias adjustment category
Regression inverse distance weighting RIDW
Collocated co-kriging CCoK
Radar-rain gauge integration category
Fast Bayesian regression kriging FBRK
Regression kriging RK
Rain gauge interpolation category
Kriging with external drift KED

2.1.1. Radar Bias Adjustment Category

The methods in this category attempt to predict the ungauged location value by the bias that
computes radar accumulation and the rain gauge accumulation. In this category, the rain gauge
observation is assumed as the true rainfall value, the radar precipitation is used as the entire background,
and the radar values at the gauged locations are used to compare with the bias adjustment [34,35]. The
ungauged locations value is adjusted by multiplying or adding the gauge-radar comparison correction
factor, which is given over a long or short time period [36].
(1) Mean field bias QPE (MFB)
Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 363 4 of 25

Mean field bias (MFB) adjustment is the simplest method in this category and assumes that the
radar estimates are affected by a spatially uniform multiplicative error, which can be a bad electronic
calibration or an offset in the Z-R relation used to convert radar reflectivity to rainfall value [13,34]. It is
acknowledged that MFB adjustment is the most common and simplest technique in radar meteorology
and the correction factor is simply obtained by comparing a spatially averaged ratio of rain gauge
with the radar accumulations at gauged locations over the given time period. In this method, a simple
multiplicative factor is used to correct the radar domain uniformly. In the current study, the adjustment
factor is estimated as PN
Gi
CMFB = PiN=1 (1)
i=1 Ri
where N is the number of valid rain gauge, Gi is the rain gauge observations, and Ri is the radar
estimated values at the rain gauge located pixel.
(2) Regression inverse distance weighting (RIDW)
In this method, the rain gauge observations are used as the true rainfall value to correct the entire
radar background field by multiplying a dynamic adjustment correction factor. In geostatistics, a
random process R(s, t) consists of two parts, where the first deterministic part D(s, t) corresponds to
the trend component, and the other stochastic residual part ε(s, t) corresponds to local fluctuations of
the trend. In this study, in addition to the observation vector g(s, t) measured by the rain gauge, the
radar-based QPE at rain gauge locations over the whole period were also considered and used at each
interpolation point. In this context, the radar external variable was used as a linear function to model
the trend D(s, t) [23], so that
R(s, t) = D(s, t) + ε(s, t) (2)

D(s, t) = a(t)r(s, t) (3)

where s is the location of a given point at time t. r(s, t) is the radar value at location s and time t. The
coefficient is computed as the slope of a linear regression of all pairs of points composed of the gauge
values on the y-axis and the values of the radar pixel on the x-axis. a(t) is assumed to be constant
spatially.
ε(s, t) = g(s, t) − D(s, t) = g(s, t) − a(t)r(s, t) (4)

R̂RIDW (s, t) = Dp (s, t) + ε̂RIDW (5)

2.1.2. Radar-Rain Gauge Integration Category

The methods in this category aim to minimize the estimation uncertainty by conducting an actual
integration of both rain gauge and radar data. As well as differing with some local bias adjustment
aiming at reducing local biases between radar and rain gauge observation, the integration category
also attempts to minimize overall estimation uncertainty [22]. The merging methods in this category
do not simply retain the radar as background or impact the local magnitude at the rain gauge location,
but depend on their relative uncertainties and estimate the rainfall value at given location grid in the
weighted average of both resources [37]. Two main methods in this category are applied to obtain a
minimum uncertainty estimation in different ways, which are:
(1) Collocated co-kriging (CCoK)
To achieve the final aim of reducing uncertainty as much as possible, this method integrates
both data instead of using only radar or rain gauge precipitation as the background. The co-kriging
(CoK) belongs to this category because it minimizes the variance of estimation by solving a single
kriging system, including both radar and rain gauge data. Although CoK can be seen as a radar-based
interpolation, it is a liner combination of a multivariate variant, merging radar and rain gauge data [38].
These results, however, from several full forms of CoK with different secondary variables, show a
significantly larger kriging system and always lead to a numerically unstable co-kriging matrix, with a
significant difference between the primary and secondary data. To avoid these uncertainties, collocated
Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 363 5 of 25

co-kriging (CCoK) has been proposed as a reduced form of CoK and applied in merging rainfall with
this variation [39,40]. Compared with CoK, CCoK employs the radar value at the rain gauge location
and only incorporates the cross-covariance between the radar value and observation at the rain gauge
location. Consequently, the kriging system has been efficiently reduced.
The CCoK estimates rainfall and can be defined as
Xn
RCCoK (s0 , t) = λCCoK
i R g (si , t) + λ02 Rr (s0 , t) (6)
i=1

where R g (si , t) are the rainfall values of the n known rain gauges at time t, λCCoK
i
are the weights of the
rain gauges, Rr (s0 , t) is the radar QPE value at the target point, and λ2 is the weight of related to the
0

radar field.
In this method, the constraint of both data weight can be defined as
Xn
λCCoK
i + λ02 = 1 (7)
i=1

The full radar covariance is, hence, not required. Instead, the covariance of rain gauges and
the cross-covariance between radar and gauges are necessary. In this paper, we used rain gauge
data and radar data as the primary variable and the secondary variable, respectively, to integrate
the precipitation estimation, and approximate the cross-correlation from the radar spatial correlation
using the alternative Markov approach [41]. Instead of the multiple (cross-) spatial correlation and
large equations using the full COK, for this study, the CCoK used a simplified approximation with its
advantage easily applied [40].
Xn
λCCoK
i CGG (xi , x0 ) + λ02 CGR (xi , xo ) = CGG (xi , xo ) (8)
i=1
Xn
λCCoK
ki
CRG (x0 , xi ) + λ02 CRR (0) = CRG (0) (9)
i=1

where CGG (h) is the covariance of the rain gauges, CRG (h) is the cross-covariance between radar and
rain gauges, and CRR (0) is the radar covariance at h = 0.
(2) Fast Bayesian regression kriging (FBRK)
In this category, we integrated both rainfall data with the purpose of obtaining the estimation at
the minimum uncertainty. For this purpose, methods in a Bayesian framework are widely used, and
we applied the fast Bayesian regression kriging (FBRK), method, as proposed by Yang and Ng [42],
to merge different data types [42]. We explicitly considered the difference in the errors from the raw
input data and aimed to estimate an accurate rainfall field and obtain better precipitation data. Unlike
most other existing kriging-based merging methods, the likelihood function in the FBRK is modified.
Further accounting for the differences, Yang and Ng [42] applied the FBRK in three different data
types, i.e., the residuals of the regression model were used to regress radar estimations, and rain gauge
observations were interpolated by the ordinary kriging.

Î0 = ar R0 + βr + e0 (10)

where Î0 is the FBRK interpolated rainfall intensity at x0 , R0 is the radar measured intensity at the
same location, ar and βr are the regression coefficients, and e0 is a random error term whose mean and
standard deviation are computed following the kriging equations below:
XM
ue0 = λi ei (11)
i=1
 XM  XM
σ2o = 1 − λi γ∞ + λi r0,i (12)
i=1 i=1
Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 363 6 of 25

  
2 2
 xi , x j 
ri,j = τ

+ s 1 − exp−
   (13)
d∞ 

rM,1  λ1   r0,1

    
 r1,1 ··· 
 .. ..  ..   ..
    
..
.  .  =  . (14)

 .
 . 

... λM
  
r1,M rM,M r0,M
 

where ue0 and σo are the expected value and standard deviation of e0 , respectively, ei is the residual of
the ith of the M rain gauge and crowdsourced observations, and λi is its associated weight.

2.1.3. Rain Gauge Interpolation Category Using the Spatial Association of Radar as an Addition
Unlike the bias adjustment methods using the entire radar field as background with these
integration methods integrating both data sources, the methods in this category simply used the
spatial association as an external drift to interpolate the rain gauge values. Ochoa-Rodriguez et al.
proposed that the merging methods in this category are all geostatistical and kriging-based [33]. The
kriging-based interpolation approaches predict the ungauged located values with the linear weights of
observations at gauged locations by minimizing the variance of the error. As such, the main component
of the methods is that the rainfall filed can be characterized as a Gaussian random variable, and because
of this, the methods predict ungauged values with the liner combination of gauged value by deriving
the weights through minimizing the variance. This differs to the classical geostatistics by assuming a
Gaussian distribution and stationarity of the spatial covariance, with the distribution of precipitation
skewed over the domain [43]. The transformation of applying both rain gauge and radar data into
a more Gaussian distribution is termed trans-gaussian kriging [44]. It is based on the quantitative
spatial variability of both data, and a more Gaussian distribution always has a better Gaussianity in
the residuals. Two widely used methods of this category were applied in this study, which are:
(1) Regression kriging (RK)
As one of the kriging family hybrid interpolation methods, regression kriging (RK) is a spatial
interpolation technique that integrates a linear regression and the regression residuals with simple
kriging. The advantage of this method is that all points are used to interpolate the residual with a
global neighborhood, which can extend to a broader range. RK uses arbitrarily complex regression on
auxiliary information (radar data) and chooses simple kriging to interpolate the residuals acquired
from the regression model. In this study, we defined the following successive steps to implement
this method: (a) The linear regression step, (b) the residuals variogram computation step, and (c) the
kriging-based interpolation of the residual steps.
For steps a and b, the trend and residuals computation based on Equation (3) are also valid for
RK. At the beginning of step c, the covariance matrix Caa of computing the covariance of the residuals
at the target location is:
 2 
 CZ C12 · · · C1N 
 C21 C2 · · · C2N 
 
Z
Caa =  (15)

.. .. .. .. 
.


 . . . 
CN2 CN2 · · · C2Z
 

where element Caa of the matrix is computed by the covariance between the observation locations I
and j, where C2Z is the variance of the observations. In this method, the square-root transformation of
the data is used in the process of applying kriging. This transformation shows a trending increase on
the Gaussianity of the overall residuals, although some analysis of the effect sometimes show a few
that are limited. Based on the linear kriging and linear combination, the weights used to compute
residuals at the target location could thus be given as:
XN
ˆRK (s0 , t) = λi ∈ (s, t) (16)
i=1
Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 363 7 of 25

which is then added to the trend mp (S0 , t) to obtain the expected value of the precipitation depth.
Finally, the expected precipitation value at the interpolation location can be computed as:

p̂RK (so , t) = mp (s0 , t) + ˆRK (s0 , t) (17)

(2) Kriging with external drift (KED)

Kriging with external drift (KED) is an extension of universal kriging interpolation, in which
the interpolated variable, in this case, is computed as the sum of stochastic term and a deterministic
term. Kriging with external drifts allows the incorporation of several additional variables that are
used as background information to interpolate the primary variable [45]. In this study, we focused on
merging rain gauge and radar data, and therefore, radar data were considered as the only additional
information in this method. The basic assumption of KED is that the expected value of the estimated
variable G(x) has a linear relationship with an additional variable R(x):

G(x) = a + b · R(x) (18)

where G(x) is the rain gauge value at location x, R(x) is the radar rainfall estimate at the gauged
location x, and a and b are linear coefficients that are determined.
The external drift can clearly indicate the full spatial variability of the radar QPE data, especially
in the events that the rain gauge-radar consistency is high. Thus, the estimation at given location x0 is
derived from a linear estimator, and the weights are computed as follows:
Xn
λKED
i =1 (19)
i=1
Xn
λKED
i R(xi ) = R(x0 ) (20)
i=1
As mentioned above, data transformation is used to deal with the rainfall showing non-Gaussian
features and the problematic cases that lack enough rain gauges to obtain a reliable variogram [46].
In this method, normal score transformation, which can associate every given probability quantile to
the corresponding quantiles of a standard normal probability distribution, is used to transform the
data to obtain a continuous, strictly cumulative distribution [44].

2.2. Meteorological Evaluation

2.2.1. Leave-One-Out Cross Validation (LOOCV)

No independent precipitation observations exist at a high resolution. Hence, to validate the
merging methods, a leave-one-out cross validation (LOOCV) was used to assess the performance of
the rainfall-merged techniques. In this method, the rain gauge point observations are assumed to be
directly measured as true values, which are used to access the performance by a comparison with other
given grid point rainfall products that are computed by different rainfall-merged methods. For the
scale mismatch between rain gauge and merging grid cell, the gauged location value is substituted
by merged rainfall data from the nearest grid center. It is notable that LOOCV only assesses the
accuracy of estimations at the rain gauge locations, but the LOOCV statistics allow us to compare the
performance of different merging methods systematically.
In this study, we undertook the evaluation on an hourly basis for each rain gauge location and for
each of the merging methods.
The following indicators were used to quantitatively compare the different radar-rain gauge
merged products and the rain gauge observations for each time step:
Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 363 8 of 25

Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 363 8 of 25

1
RMSE = 𝑅 −𝑅 (22)
𝑛
Bias: The systematic errors assessment is calculated from the mean of difference between the
MRTE: The mean-root-transformed error (MRTE) can mitigate the dominant of errors from
observed and predicted rainfall values.
large precipitation amounts for the given lower weight:
1 Xn 
Bias =1

Ri − R̂i (21)
MRTE = n i=1 𝑅 − 𝑅 (23)
𝑛
RMSE: The root mean square (RMSE) represents the standard deviation of the differences between
where 𝑅 is the rain gauge observed value, n is the number of the rain gauges, and 𝑅 is the
the observed and predicted rainfall values and is widely used in verification.
estimated value at the rain gauge location. For each whole event, the bias was computed as an
r
average of the entire period and entire spatial range.
1 Xn The  bias value
2 can range from - to + , with
RMSE = Ri − R̂i (22)
optimal value equal to 0. The RMSE and MRTEncan range i=1 from 0 to + , with optimal value equal to
0.
MRTE: The mean-root-transformed error (MRTE) can mitigate the dominant of errors from large
Finally, the assessment of individual rain gauges only provides a performance at the point
precipitation amounts for the given lower weight:
scale. For the catchment that has fewer rain gauges to validate the performance, the evaluation over
the whole catchment is necessary. Thus, in order to assess the
q performance
!2 of the merging methods
1 Xn p
MRTE =approach was
at larger areas, a hydrological application Ri implemented.
− R̂i (23)
n i=1

2.2.2. Hybrid
where Ri is theHydrological Model (Hybrid-Hebei
rain gauge observed Model) of the rain gauges, and R̂ is the estimated
value, n is the number i
valueIn at the rain gauge location. For each whole event, the bias was computed
this study, all the rainfall runoff forecasts were produced with the semi-distributed as an average of the
entire period and
rainfall-runoff entire spatial model.
Hybrid-Hebei range. The Thisbias valueiscana range
model from −∞ to +∞,
semi-distributed modelwith optimal
with value
a lumped
equal to 0. The
conceptual fromRMSE and MRTE
the Hebei modelcanandrange
a spatially to +∞, withfeature
from 0distributed optimal value
based onequal to 0.The model is
GIS [47].
Finally, theuse
in operational assessment of individual
in semi-arid rain gauges
and semi-humid only provides
regions. The runoff a performance at the point Hebei
of the semi-distributed scale.
For the is
model catchment
divided intothat has fewer
surface rain gauges
runoff to validate the
and underground performance,
runoff in each 1-km the2 evaluation over the
grid cell. When the
whole
precipitation intensity is greater than the infiltration intensity, the landmark runoff confluenceatis
catchment is necessary. Thus, in order to assess the performance of the merging methods
larger areas, and,
generated a hydrological
conversely, application approachcomponent
the infiltration was implemented.generates underground runoff after
considering the soil water demand. Finally the confluence generates the outlet flow of the basin. The
2.2.2. Hybrid Hydrological Model (Hybrid-Hebei Model)
structure of the Hebei model in each 1-km2 grid cell is shown in Figure. 1.
Inthis
In semi-humid
study, all theandrainfall
semi-arid
runoffareas, the middle
forecasts zone of with
were produced the soil
the vadose zone is relatively
semi-distributed thick,
rainfall-runoff
the infiltration rate generated by precipitation often fails to reach
Hybrid-Hebei model. This model is a semi-distributed model with a lumped conceptual from the the diving surface, and the
infiltration
Hebei modelrateand gradually
a spatially decreases
distributedduring
feature the infiltration
based process.
on GIS [47]. Therefore,
The model the main use
is in operational factor
in
affecting the
semi-arid andinfiltration
semi-humid rate is the water
regions. content
The runoff of the
of the surface soil. InHebei
semi-distributed the semi-distributed
model is dividedHebeiinto
model, runoff
surface considering the complex runoff
and underground changes inof the1-km
each 2 grid cell.
underlying surface
When andthe
theprecipitation
significant difference
intensity isin
infiltration
greater than capacity in the intensity,
the infiltration semi-aridthe and semi-humid
landmark runoffareas, the infiltration
confluence curve
is generated inconversely,
and, the model the
is a
parabolic infiltration
infiltration componentcurve controlled
generates by surface
underground soil after
runoff moisture. This is the
considering based
soilon measured
water data
demand. of the
Finally
Tuanshan
the confluencegully in northern
generates Shaanxi,
the outlet of the basin. The structure of the Hebei model in each 1-km2
China.
flow
grid cell is shown in Figure 1.

Figure1.1. Structure
Figure Structureof
ofthe
theHybrid-Hebei
Hybrid-Hebeimodel
modelin
ineach
eachgrid
gridcell.
cell.

In semi-humid
The and semi-arid
model's infiltration curveareas, thethe
within middle zone of the soil vadose zone is relatively thick, the
grid is:
infiltration rate generated by precipitation often fails to reach the diving surface, and the infiltration rate
Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 363 9 of 25

gradually decreases during the infiltration process. Therefore, the main factor affecting the infiltration
rate is the water content of the surface soil. In the semi-distributed Hebei model, considering the
complex changes of the underlying surface and the significant difference in infiltration capacity in the
semi-arid and semi-humid areas, the infiltration curve in the model is a parabolic infiltration curve
controlled by surface soil moisture. This is based on measured data of the Tuanshan gully in northern
Shaanxi, China.
The model’s infiltration curve within the grid is:

i(1+n)
!
fg = pg − e−um + fc (24)
(1 + n) fmn

where f g is infiltration rate within the grid, unit: mm/h; p g is rainfall intensity within the grid, mm/h; n
is the index; fc is stable infiltration rate, mm/h; u is the index; m is the surface soil moisture, mm; and
fmn is the infiltration capacity within the grid, mm/h.
The structure of the lumped Hebei model was described in a previous study [47]. Compared to the
original lumped Hebei model, the Hybrid-Hebei model provides improved hydrograph simulations.
It can be coupled with high-resolution precipitation to achieve a superior runoff simulation. In this
study, the Nash efficiency coefficient (NSE) was used to evaluate the ensemble runoff simulation.

PT  2
Qt0 − Qtm
t=1
NSE = 1 − P  2 (25)
T t
t = 1 Q0 − Qo

where Qt0 is the observation at time t, Qtm is the estimated value at time t, and Q̂o is the mean value of
the whole time T.
For floods in mountainous catchments, the peak flow is an important index, and the relative error
(RE) of the peak flow is adopted:
Qm − Qp
RE = (26)
Qp
where Qp is the observed peak flow and Qm is the estimated peak flow.

3. Study Area and Data

3.1. Study Area and Events

The two river catchments of Fuping and Zijinguan were selected as the study areas. These
catchments belong to the south and north reaches of the Daqinghe catchment located in Northern
China and have semi-humid and semi-arid climatic conditions. The drainage area of Fuping (from
latitude 39◦ 220 to latitude 38◦ 470 N and from longitude 113◦ 400 to longitude 114◦ 180 E) is 2210 km2 , and
the area of Zijingguan (from latitude 39◦ 130 to latitude 39◦ 400 N and from longitude 114◦ 280 to longitude
115◦ 110 E) is 1760 km2 . The elevation above sea level in the Fuping and Zijingguan catchments varies
from 254 m to approximately 2456 m and 519 m to 2105 m, respectively (Figure 2). Both catchments
react very specifically to intense rainfall for the steep terrain and the low vegetation coverage, and
the rivers of the two catchments flow from west to east. The river flow is measured at the catchment
outlets. There are eight rain gauges in the Fuping catchment and eleven rain gauges in the Zijingguan
catchment. An S-band Doppler weather radar with a scan radius of 250 km is located in Shijiazhuang
city, which is approximately 100 km to the southeast of the two catchments and both catchments can
be completely covered by the radar. In this study, four storm events from the Zijingguan catchment
and four storm events from the Fuping catchment were selected to assess the performance of different
merging methods. When we chose the storm events, a 24-h time window was used. Within the 24-h
window, the storms which showed representative rainfall evenness in space and time were chosen,
Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 363 10 of 25

which then formed the eight storm events. The start times, durations, and peak flows of these events
Remote
are Sens. 2020,
shown 12, 363
in Table 2. 10 of 25

Figure 2. The
Figure information
2. The ofofthe
information theZijingguan andFuping
Zijingguan and Fuping catchments.
catchments.
Table 2. Durations and rainfall totals for the eight selected storm events.
Table 2. Durations and rainfall totals for the eight selected storm events.
Rain Accumulated Peak Flow
Catchment Event ID Date Start Time Duration Peak
Event Start Gauges
Rain Rainfall (mm)
Accumulated (m3 s−1 )
Catchment Date Duration flow
ID
Z1 22/05/2007 time
00:00 17 h gauges rainfall
39.52 (mm) 6.8
2.5(m s )
3 -1
Z2 10/08/2008 00:00 10 h 45.53
Zijingguan 11
Z1Z3 22/05/2007
21/07/2012 00:00
04:00 1714hh 39.52
155.43 2580.0 6.8
Z4 19/07/2016 05:00 19 h 74.29 53.4
Z2 10/08/2008 00:00 10 h 45.53 2.5
Zijingguan 11
Z3F1 29/07/2007
21/07/2012 20:00
04:00 1424hh 63.38
155.43 29.72580.0
F2 30/07/2012 08:00 24 h 50.48 70.7
Fuping Z4F3 19/07/2016 05:00 1918hh 8 74.29
01/09/2012 08:00 40.30 13.7 53.4
F1F4 29/07/2007
25/07/2016 20:00
00:00 2411hh 63.38
10.8 2020 29.7
F2 30/07/2012 08:00 24 h 50.48 70.7
Fuping 8
3.2. Weather Radar F3and Data01/09/2012 08:00 18 h 40.30 13.7
F4 25/07/2016 00:00 11 h 10.8 2020
The radar data used in this study were retrieved from the S-band single-polarization Doppler
weather radar located at Shijiazhuang city in Northern China (Figure 1). The detailed information of
3.2. Weather Radar and Data
this radar can be seen in Table 3. The radar is operated by the China Meteorological Administration
(CMA) and
The has an
radar dataoptimal
used in detection
this studyrange
wereof retrieved
230 km. The fromradar
the obtains
S-band per base reflectivity Doppler
single-polarization data on
every
weathersix-minute volume
radar located scan and completely
at Shijiazhuang covers the
city in Northern two (Figure
China study areas [48].
1). The A radar
detailed QPE Group
information of
System (QPEGS) was developed by the CMA, providing hourly QPE data at a
this radar can be seen in Table 3. The radar is operated by the China Meteorological Administration high spatial resolution.
For different
(CMA) sources
and has of errors,
an optimal such asrange
detection radarofcalibration,
230 km. Thevariation of theper
radar obtains vertical
base reflectivity dataprofile,
on
attenuation, and anomalies,
every six-minute volume scan quality control of radar
and completely coversdata, suchstudy
the two as theareas
removal
[48]. ofA ground
radar QPE clutter,
Groupis
necessary and carried
System (QPEGS) wasoutdeveloped
by the OPEGS.by the A maximum-pixel-value
CMA, providing hourly methodQPEwas dataalsoatused to generate
a high spatial
the “mixed height
resolution. radar reflectivity”
For different sources ofinerrors,
each volume
such as gridded
radar value, as in the
calibration, hybrid scan
variation of thereflectivity
vertical
proposed byprofile,
reflectivity the National Severe Storms
attenuation, Laboratory
and anomalies, (NSSL).
quality For the
control of location of the
radar data, selected
such as theradar
removalin this
of
study,
ground a threshold
clutter, is value (38 dBZ)
necessary and of radar out
carried reflectivity was set toAdifferentiate
by the OPEGS. between themethod
maximum-pixel-value convectivewas
alsostratiform
and used to generate
rainfall the
types“mixed height the
considering radar reflectivity”
rainfall featuresin in each
easternvolume
Chinagridded
[49]. Thevalue, as in the
accumulated
hybridwas
clutter scanalways
reflectivity proposed
magnified by the
during theNational Severe Storms
hourly accumulated Laboratory
rainfall (NSSL).
collection For so
period, thealocation
simple
of the filter
clutter selected
wasradar
used in this study,
to remove the astatic
threshold
clutter.value (38 dBZ)
The power lawofMarshall–Palmer
radar reflectivityrelationship
was set to
differentiate between the convective and stratiform rainfall types considering the rainfall features in
eastern China [49]. The accumulated clutter was always magnified during the hourly accumulated
rainfall collection period, so a simple clutter filter was used to remove the static clutter. The power
law Marshall–Palmer relationship converted the radar reflectivity (Z) to rain rata (R), and a Z-R
Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 363 11 of 25

converted the radar reflectivity (Z) to rain rata (R), and a Z-R relationship calculated the accumulated
rainfall for convective and stratiform rainfall types [50]. In the QPEGS, the common definition of “a”
and “b” is shown in Equations (25) and (26) [48]. To ensure that the spatial resolution of radar data
can reflect the precipitation, a higher radar precipitation, rather than a low threshold of 0.1 mm, was
considered for the estimation of a 1 km × 1 km radar grid.
For convective:
Z = 300R1.4 (27)

For stratiform:
Z = 200R1.6 (28)

Table 3. The parameters and hardware functions of the Shijiazhuang SA Doppler Radar.

Radar Name of Frequency Beam Antenna Pulse Antenna Peak Power

Name Radar Site (GHz) Width (◦ ) Diameter (m) Width (µs) Gain (db) (kw)
Shijiazhuang SA 2.7~3.0 1 11.8 * 1.57 ≥44 650
* The antenna diameter includes the radome.

4. Results and Discussion

We produced a series of sets of radar-rain gauge merged data by combining the radar and rain
gauge precipitation using different merging methods. During the computing period with these merging
methods, some applications were defined. For example, a value of 2 (common default value) was
given in the RIDW method, and a minimum of three stations were used in the kriging-based methods.
Spherical-model semivariograms defined the variograms that were ill defined, with an insufficient
number of points. The last previously computed valid variogram was instead used when the present
condition was not valid, and the regression and integration were computed on stations only located in
the basins [51,52]. The evaluation of the quality and the reliability of the merged data in this study
was assessed in two stages: The quantitative evaluation of radar-rain gauge merging methods based
on LOOCV and the hydrological model performance driven from the merged data as Hybrid-Hebei
model input.

4.1. Evaluation of Radar-Rain Gauge Merging Methods

To assess the performance of the different merging methods, we computed the present performance
indicators for the eight events. For each indicator, hourly rainfall values were averaged for each event
(Table 4, Figure 3), and the calculated weight of each rain gauge was determined by the area weight
divided by the Thiessen polygon. As indicated, the QPE-only-based radar data (OR) clearly showed
the weakest performance in all performance indicators, which confirms the necessity of bias correction
using rain gauge observations. For the BIAS indicator, the median of BIAS should be close to zero
with minimum dispersion because the cross-validation errors of a good estimator should be unbiased.
The results shown in Figure 3 indicate that all merging methods were relatively unbiased (median
errors were close to zero in all events), but the range of BIAS varied between the different methods.
The main difference between these methods can be seen in the range of the indicators, whereby the
integration category has the smallest range of BIAS rather than the interpolation category and bias
adjustment category [53]. The results show that the kriging-based methods all performed well, with the
bias reduced. A comparison of the results of the three categories on the RMSE and MRTE (Figure 3) is
noticeable. Irrespective of the two merging methods chosen in the integration or interpolation category,
one of these had a clear improvement over the bias adjustment and another has a slight improvement.
The performance and added value of the associated merging methods generally increase with the
improvement of correlation between rain gauge and radar estimation for medium or large geographic
domains, but is invisible for the smaller domains for the limited rain gauges observation and the
uncertainty of precipitation under rapid spatial transformation [33].
indicators. For example, the RIDW performed better overall than the CCoK and RK when applied in
Fuping. In terms of the BIAS, the RIDW showed a similar performance with the FBRK or KED and
had a better performance than CCoK or RK in terms of RMSE and MTRE indicators. This is due to
the fact that the quality of the kriging-based methods and bias adjustment methods depend
significantly on12,the
Remote Sens. 2020, 363 geometry of the rain gauge network distribution and, in particular, on the
12 of 25
low-density rain gauge network [32].

Figure
Figure 3.3.Boxplots
Boxplots
of theofindicators
the indicators BIAS, square
BIAS, root mean root error
mean square
(RMSE), error (RMSE), and
and mean-root-transformed
mean-root-transformed error (MRTE) of the chosen two basins. For each method,
error (MRTE) of the chosen two basins. For each method, the central bar is the median, the central bar is
the bounds of
the median, the bounds of the box are the first and third quartiles, and the whiskers include 1.5-times
the box are the first and third quartiles, and the whiskers include 1.5-times the interquartile range from
the
theinterquartile
box. Note thatrange
onlyfrom the box.rainfall
the hourly Note that only
values inthe
thehourly
domain >0.1 mm
rainfall values
are in the domain
provided >0.1
in this mm
figure.
are provided in this figure.
Table 4. The indicators performance based on leave-one-out cross validation (LOOCV) in the
two catchments.
Table 4. The indicators performance based on leave-one-out cross validation (LOOCV) in the two
Basin Indicator OR MFB catchments.
RIDW CCoK FBRK RK KED
Basin
BIAS Indicator
−2.84 OR
−1.69 MFB 1.61RIDW CCoK
0.58 FBRK0.24 RK −0.71KED 0.34
Zijingguan RMSE 4.84
BIAS 4.49
-2.84 -1.69 3.281.61 3.3
0.58 1.31
0.24 2.92
-0.71 0.34 1.41
MRTE 1.86 1.22 1.03 0.55 0.21 0.78 0.22
Zijingguan RMSE 4.84 4.49 3.28 3.3 1.31 2.92 1.41
BIAS −1.08
MRTE −0.36
1.86 1.22 0.331.03 0.20
0.55 −0.08
0.21 0.78 −0.28
0.22 −0.11
Fuping RMSE 3.78 2.14 1.64 2.22 1.18 2.72 1.21
BIAS -1.08 -0.36 0.33 0.20 -0.08 -0.28 -0.11
Fuping
MRTE 1.63 0.98 0.49 0.57 0.19 0.73 0.22
RMSE 3.78 2.14 1.64 2.22 1.18 2.72 1.21

Figure 3 provides a graphical representation of the results of the different merging methods on
the two basins and indicates that the FBRK results performed best, followed by the KED, CCoK, RK,
RIDW, and MFB. The improvement of the FBRK data over the KED, however, was relatively minor
compared to their improvements over other merging methods. The two methods that performed
best were the FBRK and KED, which belong to the integration category and interpolation category,
respectively. It has been pointed out in previous studies that the methods in the bias adjustment
category were not found to have a better performance in any inter-comparison studies [32,54]. The
results of these methods make us consider that correction can be used to estimate all points inside
the study area and can deal with anisotropy and the spatial evolution of precipitation with assuming
translation invariance and small basins. The results are not clear, however, for partial methods and
indicators. For example, the RIDW performed better overall than the CCoK and RK when applied in
Fuping. In terms of the BIAS, the RIDW showed a similar performance with the FBRK or KED and had
a better performance than CCoK or RK in terms of RMSE and MTRE indicators. This is due to the fact
that the quality of the kriging-based methods and bias adjustment methods depend significantly on
the geometry of the rain gauge network distribution and, in particular, on the low-density rain gauge
network [32].
Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 363 13 of 25

Through the overall comparison of the performance of the two basins using different merging
methods, we found that different merging methods not only produced similar results, but also showed
different performances. This is because there is an information gap, such as the area of the basin, the
distribution information of the rain gauges, and the distance from the radar. Therefore, we need to
analyze and discuss each basin in order to determine suitable merging methods that suit different basins
and the reasons for their suitability, as well as the reasons why other methods do not perform well.
In Table 5, the indicator performances of the merging methods for the four storm events of
Zijingguan are shown. Figures 4 and 5 show the boxplot of the three indicators for the four events in
different merging methods and the scatterplot of the rain gauge observations with the predicted rainfall
values from the six merging methods. The merging methods generally outperformed the radar-only
estimations and the quality of radar data determined the quality of the merging products. The BIAS
shows a clear underestimation when comparing the radar QPE with the rain gauge observation and
confirms the need for correction of the radar QPE using rain gauges. The results for the BIAS show that
for the performance of the rainfall data compared with the gauge observation, OR and MFB showed
a strong negative value and the RIDW had a strong positive value. The other methods had a bias
value of approximately 0. Furthermore, the values of the RMSE and MRTE strengthen the observation.
It can also be seen that the interpolation methods and integration methods performed better than
the bias adjustment methods. This could be due to the simplicity of bias adjustment methods and
the complex formulation of the other two methods. It seems that a more complex implementation of
merging methods always achieves a better result.
The FBRK method and the KED method provided the best performance and second-best
performance, respectively, for the three indicators, whereby they provided the best and second-best
values over all four events in the Zijingguan catchment. The scatter diagram (Figure 5) demonstrates
that the FBRK and KED had a significant relationship between the merging data and rain gauge data,
thereby indicating the high potential of merging skills in the applications. To the authors’ knowledge,
in all merging methods studied, the BAY-based method and the KED are the most popular merging
methods that generally perform best [32], and this is in concordance with our results. The overall
indicators and events show that the FBRK has a slightly better performance than KED. The third
and fourth best performing methods were the CCoK and the RK methods. It is noted that the BIAS
value-based RK had a slightly negative bias. In terms of all indicators, CCoK outperformed for three
events, but for the Z3 event, the RK performed better than CCoK. The RK preserved the relative
spatial rainfall resolution of the radar data, but its value estimates tended to be under the range of
the gauge observations. We highlight that the RIDW method was applied with the default value of
2 [52]. The parameter, however, is often applied across large areas (particularly including a degree of
spatial varying of rain gauge-radar biases), along with small-scale features that are spatially variable.
This means that a default value may fail to quantitatively correct the rainfall data. An adjustment of
the parameter may achieve a better performance of the RIDW method. The MFB performed worst in
all methods and events. The MFB is, however, the most commonly used and investigated method
among all merging methods, and it scales the original radar data to match the rainfall accumulations
recorded by rain gauges. Considering this, the MFB can potentially provide a better representation of
small-rainfall features compared with the other five merging methods [33]. The simple use and way in
which the radar QPE is employed throughout the merging process, however, suggests that the MFB
may fail to satisfactorily correct the rainfall features.
Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 363 14 of 25

Table 5. The indicator performance based on LOOCV in Zijingguan.

Event Indicator OR MFB RIDW CCoK FBRK RK KED

BIAS −0.84 −0.49 0.25 0.12 0.07 −0.16 −0.10
Z1 RMSE 2.33 1.05 1.08 0.87 0.41 1.05 0.53
Remote Sens. 2020,MRTE
12, 363 0.73 0.34 0.23 0.16 0.04 0.18 14 of 25
0.06
BIAS −1.195 −0.78 0.61 −0.14 −0.06 −0.31 0.09
RMSE
RMSE
5.69
5.692.26 2.26 2.15
2.15
1.86
1.86
0.850.85
1.97 1.07
1.97 1.07
Z2
MRTE MRTE
1.87 1.870.67 0.67 0.52
0.52 0.34
0.34 0.09
0.09 0.40 0.14
0.40 0.14
BIAS
BIAS
−4.40
-4.40
−2.36
-2.36 2.34
2.34
1.17
1.17
0.54
0.54
-1.01 0.76
−1.01 0.76
Z3 Z3
RMSE RMSE
9.11 9.117.97 7.97 5.35
5.35 6.17
6.17 2.962.96 5.78 3.23
5.78 3.23
MRTE MRTE
2.69 2.691.90 1.90 1.27
1.27 1.53 0.50
0.50 1.34 0.69
1.34 0.69
BIAS BIAS
−2.68 -2.68
−1.01 -1.01 0.71
0.71 -0.33
−0.33 -0.16
−0.16 -0.66 0.21
−0.66 0.21
Z4 Z4
RMSE RMSE
6.61 6.614.12 4.12 3.12
3.12 1.31 0.970.97 2.10 0.99
2.10 0.99
MRTE 2.12
MRTE 2.121.68 1.68 1.11
1.11 0.66
0.66 0.20
0.20 0.87 0.87
0.31 0.31

Figure 4.4. Boxplot

Figure Boxplotfor
forthe
the radar
radar only
only andand six merging
six merging methods
methods valuesvalues
of threeof indicators
three indicators
in four in four
events.
events.
For eachFor each method,
method, the centralthebar
central
is thebar is the the
median, median,
boundstheofbounds
the boxofare
thethe
box areand
first thethird
first and third
quartiles,
quartiles,
and and the include
the whiskers whiskers1.5-times
include 1.5-times the interquartile
the interquartile range from range
the from
box. the
Notebox. Note
that onlythat
theonly the
hourly
hourly rainfall
rainfall values
values in the domain >0.1 mm
in the domain >0.1
aremm are provided
provided in this figure.
in this figure.

(a) (b)
 Figure 4. Boxplot for the radar only and six merging methods values of three indicators in four
events. For each method, the central bar is the median, the bounds of the box are the first and third
Remotequartiles,
Sens. 2020,and the whiskers include 1.5-times the interquartile range from the box. Note that only the
12, 363 15 of 25
hourly rainfall values in the domain >0.1 mm are provided in this figure.

Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 363 15 of 25

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Figure5.5.Scatterplots
Figure Scatterplotsofofdata
databetween
betweenthe therain
raingauge
gaugeobservations
observationsandandthe theradar-rain
radar-raingauge
gaugemerged
merged
products
products (the mean
(the fieldfield
mean bias (MFB), regression
bias (MFB), inverse distance
regression inverse weighting (RIDW), collocated
distance weighting (RIDW),co-kriging
collocated
(CCok), fast Bayesian
co-kriging (CCok), regression kriging
fast Bayesian (FBRK),kriging
regression regression krigingregression
(FBRK), (RK), and kriging with(RK),external drift
and kriging
(KED)) of the Zijingguan
with external drift (KED))basin.
of Continuous
the Zijingguan1/1 slope
basin.lines are shown
Continuous 1/1forslope
the purpose
lines areof shown
visualization
for the
when comparing
purpose different when
of visualization merging methods.different
comparing In this figure,
merging(a) methods.
the scatterIndistribution
this figure,of (a)the
thechosen
scatter
merging methods in Z1 event; (b) the scatter distribution of the chosen merging methods
distribution of the chosen merging methods in Z1 event; (b) the scatter distribution of the chosen in Z2 event;
(c) the scatter
merging distribution
methods of the chosen
in Z2 event; merging
(c) the scatter methods inofZ3
distribution event;
the (d)merging
chosen the scatter distribution
methods in Z3of the
event;
chosen
(d) themerging methods in of
scatter distribution Z4the
event.
chosen merging methods in Z4 event.

Table
Table6 6shows
showsthe theindicator
indicatorperformances
performancesofofthe themerging
mergingmethods methodsfor forthe
thefour
fourstorm
stormevents
eventsofof
Fuping.
Fuping. Figures 6 and 7 show detailed information regarding the six merging methods appliedinin
Figures 6 and 7 show detailed information regarding the six merging methods applied
Fuping.
Fuping.The Theresults
results of the
of performances
the performances for thefor
three
thecategories are the same
three categories as those
are the sameof asthethose
Zijingguan
of the
events. When comparing the indicator performances of the
Zijingguan events. When comparing the indicator performances of the two basins, the ORtwo basins, the OR performed better
inperformed
Fuping, inferring
better in that Fuping,thereinferring
was a better QPEwas
that there for close
a betterto QPE
the radar station.
for close to theAs expected,
radar station.theAs
methods
expected, belonging
the methodsto the belonging
bias adjustment
to thecategory had a better
bias adjustment performance
category had a than
bettertheir applicationsthan
performance in
Zijingguan. In contrast
their applications in to the results In
Zijingguan. of the chosentomethods
contrast the resultsapplied in Zijingguan,
of the it is clear
chosen methods that thein
applied
RIDW belonging to the bias adjustment category outperformed the CCoK
Zijingguan, it is clear that the RIDW belonging to the bias adjustment category outperformed the belonging to the integration
category and the RK
CCoK belonging tobelonging to the category
the integration interpolation category.
and the It is well to
RK belonging known that the smaller
the interpolation the value
category. It is
inwell
the known
indicators and the smaller the range in the boxplot, the better the scatter
that the smaller the value in the indicators and the smaller the range in the boxplot, the correction. The better
QPE is the
better the main
scatter reason leading
correction. Theto better
the superior
QPE isperformance
the main reason of theleading
RIDW,to andthewith a better
superior QPE, the
performance
RIDW
of thecan preserve
RIDW, and the withoriginal
a betterstructure
QPE, the of the radarcan
RIDW rainfall,
preserveespecially the small-scale
the original structurefeatures. The
of the radar
RK method is highly reliant upon rain gauge numbers because it simply
rainfall, especially the small-scale features. The RK method is highly reliant upon rain gauge utilizes the spatial information
ofnumbers
the radarbecause
field at the rain gauge
it simply locations
utilizes to interpolate.
the spatial information As well as the
of the ability
radar fieldofat
RKtheto reproduce
rain gauge
rainfall features, it is highly dependent upon the density of rain
locations to interpolate. As well as the ability of RK to reproduce rainfall features, it isgauges at the small scale. The RK
highly
method is likely to be used more in the limited rain gauges, with the
dependent upon the density of rain gauges at the small scale. The RK method is likely to be usedvariogram generation based on
the point
more rainlimited
in the gauge rain value. The relatively
gauges, poor performance
with the variogram generation of the
basedCCoK andpoint
on the RK results (Figure
rain gauge 6)
value.
were likely due to the assumption that the Gaussian distribution in
The relatively poor performance of the CCoK and RK results (Figure 6) were likely due to the dynamic merging methods would
assumption that the Gaussian distribution in dynamic merging methods would compute results that
may be limited in simulating rainfall values [43]. For CCoK, the method takes spatial information
from the radar in the basin. According to the performance results (Table 6), the better QPE and
limited rain gauges combined to produce a satisfactory performance.
Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 363 16 of 25

compute results that may be limited in simulating rainfall values [43]. For CCoK, the method takes
spatial information from the radar in the basin. According to the performance results (Table 6), the
better QPE and limited rain gauges combined to produce a satisfactory performance.

Table 6. The indicator performance based on LOOCV in Fuping.

Event Indicator OR MFB RIDW CCoK FBRK RK KED

BIAS −1.87 −0.93 0.41 0.76 −0.23 −0.68 −0.31
F1 RMSE 5.43 3.33 2.35 2.12 1.42 2.67 1.66
MRTE 3.27 1.40 1.06 0.73 0.19 1.28 0.43
BIAS −0.93 −0.53 0.17 0.21 0.08 −0.24 0.09
Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 363 16 of 25
F2 RMSE 2.79 1.89 1.36 1.84 0.61 1.45 0.96
MRTE 1.55 0.62 0.33 0.45 0.11 0.34 0.20
BIAS -0.95 -0.53 0.21 0.26 0.03 -0.26 0.07
BIAS −0.95 −0.53 0.21 0.26 0.03 −0.26 0.07
F3 RMSE
RMSE
2.71
2.71
1.32
1.32
0.89
0.89
1.01
1.01 0.51
0.51 0.92
0.92
0.65
0.65
F3
MRTE
MRTE 0.710.71 0.47
0.47 0.18
0.18 0.280.28 0.060.06 0.190.19 0.12
0.12
BIAS -0.59 -0.25 0.17 0.24 -0.04 0.28 0.05
BIAS −0.59 −0.25 0.17 0.24 −0.04 0.28 0.05
F4F4 RMSE
RMSE 4.184.18 2.02
2.02 1.68
1.68 1.87
1.87 0.430.43 1.781.78 0.64
0.64
MRTE
MRTE 0.880.88 0.36
0.36 0.21
0.21 0.260.26 0.060.06 0.260.26 0.11
0.11

Figure 6.6. Boxplot

Boxplotforforthe
theradar
radaronly
onlyandand
six six
merging methods
merging values
methods of three
values indicators
of three in fourin
indicators events.
four
For each method, the central bar is the median, the bounds of the box are the first and third
events. For each method, the central bar is the median, the bounds of the box are the first and third quartiles,
and the whiskers
quartiles, include 1.5-times
and the whiskers the interquartile
include 1.5-times range from
the interquartile thefrom
range box. the
Note
box.that only
Note theonly
that hourly
the
rainfall values in the domain >0.1 mm are shown in this figure.
hourly rainfall values in the domain >0.1 mm are shown in this figure.

(a) (b)
 Figure 6. Boxplot for the radar only and six merging methods values of three indicators in four
events. For each method, the central bar is the median, the bounds of the box are the first and third
Remotequartiles,
Sens. 2020,and the whiskers include 1.5-times the interquartile range from the box. Note that only the 17 of 25
12, 363
hourly rainfall values in the domain >0.1 mm are shown in this figure.

Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 363 17 of 25

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Figure7.7.Scatterplots
Figure Scatterplotsofofdata
databetween
betweenthe therain
raingauge
gaugeobservations
observationsand andthe
theradar-rain
radar-raingauge
gaugemerged
merged
products(the
products (theMFB,
MFB, RIDW,
RIDW, CCoK,
CCoK, FBRK,
FBRK, RK,RK,
andand
KED)KED) ofFuping
of the the Fuping
basin.basin. Continuous
Continuous 1/1 lines
1/1 slope slope
lines
are are shown
shown for thefor the purpose
purpose of visualization
of visualization when comparing
when comparing differentdifferent
mergingmerging
methods.methods. In this
In this figure,
figure,
(a) (a) the
the scatter scatter distribution
distribution of the chosen ofmerging
the chosen merging
methods methods
in F1 event; in F1
(b) the event;
scatter (b) the scatter
distribution of the
distribution
chosen merging of methods
the chosen merging
in F2 event; methods in F2distribution
(c) the scatter event; (c) the scatter
of the distribution
chosen of the chosen
merging methods in F3
merging
event; (d) methods
the scatterindistribution
F3 event; (d)ofthe
thescatter
chosendistribution of the chosen
merging methods merging methods in F4 event.
in F4 event.

Through
Through the comparison
comparisonofofthe the three
three evaluation
evaluation indicators
indicators withwiththe twothebasins,
two basins,
the twothe two
classical
classical
approachesapproaches
(FBRK and (FBRKKED),andbased
KED), onbased on inotropic
inotropic and variograms,
and variograms, are the bestare the bestofsuited
suited of the
the merging
merging methods, which work well with the high spatial and temporal
methods, which work well with the high spatial and temporal variability of precipitation. The variability of precipitation.
The performance
performance of the
of the different
different merging
merging methodsisisclearly
methods clearlyshown
shownin in this section. Multiple
Multiple factors,
factors,
which
whichaffect
affectthe
theapplication
applicationofofradar-rain
radar-raingauge
gaugemerging
mergingmethods
methodsused usedin inthe
thebasins,
basins,werewereidentified
identified
in
inthis
this study.
study. Obviously, the most important important single
singlefactor
factoraffecting
affectingthe theperformance
performanceisisthe thequality
qualityof
of QPE
QPE that
that indicates
indicates thethe ability
ability of radar
of radar to sample
to sample the rainfall
the rainfall conditions
conditions [55].[55].
As the Asapplication
the application
in the
in the Fuping
Fuping shows,shows,
the RIDW, the RIDW,
based abased
better aQPE,
better QPE, outperformed
outperformed the CCoKthe andCCoK and RK,the
RK, although although
limited
the limited rain gauges significantly affected the performances of these methods.
rain gauges significantly affected the performances of these methods. The lack of rain gauges created The lack of rain
gauges
a lack created a lack ofprovided
of consistency consistencyby provided
radar and byrain
radar and rain
gauges. Asgauges. As some
some studies studies
have havemerging
found, found,
merging performance generally improves with increasing
performance generally improves with increasing consistency between radar andconsistency between radar and rain gauge
gauge
measurements,
measurements,particularly
particularlyininthetheintegration
integrationand andinterpolation
interpolationcategories
categories[19].[19].
For
Forsmall-scale
small-scale basins,
basins, the
the preservation
preservation of ofsmall-scale
small-scale rainfall
rainfall features
features isis critical
critical to
toapply
applythethe
methods. Different merging methods mean different choices regarding
methods. Different merging methods mean different choices regarding how the radar and rain how the radar and rain gauge
data
gauge aredata
treated
are and applied
treated during the
and applied merging
during process [56].
the merging processIn this
[56].study,
In thismethodological choices
study, methodological
focused
choices on improving
focused the qualitythe
on improving of radar
qualityandofrain
radargaugeandestimates
rain gauge through different
estimates methods.
through For
different
small-scale basins, the radar QPE was the main data source, providing spatial
methods. For small-scale basins, the radar QPE was the main data source, providing spatial details details of the rainfall.
Thus,
of thethe abilityThus,
rainfall. of thesethemerging methods
ability of to preserve
these merging local rainfall
methods features
to preserve was
local highlyfeatures
rainfall dependent was
on the proportion of, and way of, employing radar data through the
highly dependent on the proportion of, and way of, employing radar data through the mergingmerging process. As described
in Section As
process. 2.1.1, the bias adjustment
described in Section category
2.1.1, thescaled
bias the original radar
adjustment categoryestimation
scaled bythemultiplying
original radarthe
estimation by multiplying the QPE accumulations with factors to match the rain gauge record. As
such, the original structure of the radar rainfall field was essentially preserved. However, the MFB
did not achieve a satisfactory performance in the rainfall rates correction associated with small-scale
features. Because MFB is usually applied uniformly to large areas, it often ignores the spatial
variability in radar QPEs when applied at the small scale [57]. As Table 6 demonstrates, RIDW
Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 363 18 of 25

QPE accumulations with factors to match the rain gauge record. As such, the original structure of
the radar rainfall field was essentially preserved. However, the MFB did not achieve a satisfactory
performance in the rainfall rates correction associated with small-scale features. Because MFB is usually
applied uniformly to large areas, it often ignores the spatial variability in radar QPEs when applied
at the small scale [57]. As Table 6 demonstrates, RIDW achieved a satisfactory performance with a
high-quality radar QPE. As discussed in the previous section, a local regression of the radar data on the
rain gauge data could contribute positively to the RIDW performance. The methods in the integration
category combine the two datasets based on their relative uncertainty (see Section 2.1.2). As such,
with limited rain gauges or high spatial rainfall variability, integration methods take more information
from the radar data. This means that it is possible for integration methods to obtain a satisfactory
reproduction of small-scale features, as in the assessment result of FBRK (Table 5). To a certain extent,
however, CCoK prefers the interpolation category, in both the performance of comparison from the
results and the Gaussian assumption. Unlike the other two categories, the methods in the interpolation
category are highly reliant on rain gauge observations, simply considering the gauged radar data
in the interpolation process. As per the result comparison discussed in the previous sections, the
performance of interpolation-based methods is clearly associated with the density of rain gauges,
which decide the ability to capture the small-scale rainfall features. Conversely, interpolation methods
with Gaussian assumptions always smooth the high nonlinearities in small-scale features [58]. This is
why the error of the RK prediction value is more obvious when the precipitation is large. For KED, the
spatial details are reconstructed after the merging process. The density of rain gauges employed in
radar-rain gauge merging has an impact on the performance of the merging methods. The impact
of limited rain gauge availability on merging performance is closely linked to the reliance of a given
merging method upon rain gauge data, as well as to the way in which radar data is employed in the
merging process. Having a sufficient number of rain gauges in the study area may increase the ability
of the rain gauges to capture the relevant precipitation features. However, the two catchments in this
manuscript had a limited number of rain gauges due to the lack of monitoring network. With the
increasing of monitoring stations, a further work should be implemented to study the influence of the
rain gauge density on the merging performance.
In the six chosen merging method performances, we conclude the strengths and weaknesses
of the three categories. The bias adjustment category has the advantage of ease of use, which leads
to its wide application. For the methods in this category, small-scale rainfall features are generally
preserved, although the correction may fail to correct the rain rates. The integration category allows for
the consideration of rain gauge and radar uncertainties. The complex computation of the integration
category, such as requiring solving matrix systems, leads to it being applied and tested the least. The
interpolation category ranks between the other two categories in both complexity and performance,
which is why the methods in the interpolation category are becoming increasingly popular [19].

4.2. Hydrological Model Performance Evaluation

The LOOCV analysis result does not allow a direct comparison because the left rain gauge is
just used to compare and not used to compute the product [52]. Some authors have proposed that
a higher quality of the merging products can be indicated from agreements between the simulated
and observed runoff using the merging products as the input [53]. All authors, however, pointed out
that the calibration of a hydrological model is a demanding task and subject to various uncertainties,
particularly for mountain flood simulations, whereby it is not easy to find the adequate parameters for
considering uncertainties in the model structure and parameterization. In this study, a set of calibrated
and validated model parameters were, therefore, used with the Hybrid-Hebei rainfall-runoff model in
the same two basins [47].
Table 7 shows the performance of merging methods in the runoff simulation. As expected, the
merging methods performed a different goodness-of-fit with the runoff simulation. For the NSE, all
merging methods performed normally, and the extent of failure was revealed more clearly in RE. The
Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 363 19 of 25

values of NSE were increased from 0.21 (the MFB in F4) to 0.62 (the KED in F2). Concerning peak flows,
the values of MFB and RK were negative overall, indicating a general tendency of underestimation
together with the performance of rainfall estimates in the previous section. All the other methods
showed a higher estimate. It can be noticed that the RK method seemed to have a better performance
for the peak flows than FBRK and KED methods for the Z3, F2, F3, and F4 storm events. In this study,
the purpose of inputting the QPEs to the hydrological model was not to rank the merging methods, but
to test the applicability of the merging rainfall products for flood forecasting. The performance of the
rainfall-runoff model is subject to its parameter calibration. Since only one certain set of parameters
was used for the Hybrid-Hebei model, the differences of QPEs from different merging methods may be
obscured in the runoff simulations. As indicated in Table 7, the MFB performed worse than any of the
methods chosen. The best results were the FBRK and KED methods. The performance of the FBRK
and KED methods were almost identical when considering the simulation of NSE and RE in the entire
events. This may be because the model calibration seems to have compensated for the differences in
the rainfall garnering in the merging process. Compared with the CCoK and RK, the CCoK showed
a better performance in most events, and therefore, the result indicates that the performance of the
hydrological output is highly dependent on the accuracy of the rainfall product. The RIDW method
ranked between the RK and MFB in both Fuping and Zijingguan. With one exception (Z3), however,
the performances of these merging methods were different from other events.

Table 7. The indicator performance based on the Hybrid-Hebei model in two catchments.

Event Indicator MFB RIDW CCoK FBRK RK KED

NSE 0.37 0.44 0.51 0.57 0.46 0.60
Z1
RE −0.47 0.57 0.24 0.21 −0.38 0.26
NSE 0.47 0.41 0.55 0.59 0.46 0.61
Z2
RE −0.38 0.33 0.36 0.28 −0.29 0.24
NSE 0.36 0.52 0.42 0.53 0.41 0.49
Z3
RE −0.52 0.54 0.35 0.28 −0.16 0.41
NSE 0.26 0.37 0.41 0.52 0.38 0.50
Z4
RE −0.68 0.61 0.55 0.38 −0.69 0.28
NSE 0.32 0.38 0.48 0.58 0.42 0.55
F1
RE −0.47 0.68 0.56 0.42 −0.48 0.38
NSE 0.41 0.49 0.51 0.61 0.49 0.62
F2
RE −0.55 0.95 0.77 0.55 −0.48 0.48
NSE 0.36 0.42 0.46 0.54 0.40 0.51
F3
RE −0.49 0.78 0.63 0.37 −0.33 0.65
NSE 0.21 0.38 0.41 0.53 0.35 0.55
F4
RE −0.68 0.44 0.36 0.68 −0.57 0.48

Figure 8 shows the 24-h accumulated rainfall in the Zijingguan catchment based on different
merging methods in the Z3 event. Figure 9 shows the hourly precipitation distribution and simulated
stream flow hydrograph of all merging methods in this event, and the hydrograph flood process
was extended to 36 h. As indicated in Figure 9, the entire runoff simulation process lines of merging
methods had the same trend as the measured flow process line. The runoff hydrograph indicates that
the catchment in the study area was relatively fast. The occurrence time of flood peak was the same in
all simulation processes, and the peak staggering time was no more than a maximum of one hour. This
indicates that the Hybrid-Hebei model can successfully simulate runoff under different precipitation
products. For all merging methods, it is can be seen from Table 7 and Figure 9 that FBRK continued
to rank highest in the hydrological verification. The RIDW outperformed at NSE because the runoff
simulation hydrograph of RIDW was the only one with a double-peak flow as the measured runoff
streamline. RIDW, however, was evaluated as only better than the MFB in LOOCV. KED performed the
Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 363 20 of 25

third best in the NSE, however, the extent of failure was found in the peak flow. The CCoK performed
worse, and a one-hour peak flow lag was found (Figure 9). RK and MFB both showed an average
performance
Remote Sens.
Remote in 12,
Sens. 2020,
2020, NSE
12, 363and RE, and both showed a clear underestimation in peak flow.
363 20 of
20 of 25
25

Figure8.
Figure
Figure 8.Twenty-four-hour
8. Twenty-four-houraccumulated
Twenty-four-hour accumulatedrainfall
accumulated rainfallbased
rainfall basedon
based ondifferent
on differentmerging
different mergingmethods
merging methods(mm).
methods (mm).
(mm).

Figure9.9.
Figure
Figure 9.Hydrographs
Hydrographsshowing
Hydrographs showingsimulated
showing simulatedstream
simulated streamdischarge
stream dischargeat
discharge atthe
at thedischarge
the dischargestation
discharge stationin
station inZijingguan.
in Zijingguan.
Zijingguan.

In this
Based
In thison section,
section, the fitness
the result
the fitness
of NSE of (Table
of the simulated
the simulated flow driven
7), the results
flow driven by different
of runoff
by different
simulations merging
mergingwere products
normal.was
products was
Thisused
is
used
to assess
to assess the
particularly the performance
because of these
these merging
performance of thesemethods
products.
products. The
doThe hydrological
not hydrological
have performance
a large difference
performance of the
the merging
in accumulated
of merging methods
precipitation
methods
wastemporal
and
was not as
not as good
good as expected.
expected.
distribution
as in Z3ItIt(Figure
is notable
is notable that, in
9). When
that, in runoff simulations,
considering
runoff simulations,
the peak flow, thesehowever,
these methodsthe
methods all significantly
all significantly
discrepancy
ranked
was
ranked the lowest
pronounced
the lowest in the
in both
in the biasand
value
bias adjustment
occurrence
adjustment category. This may
time. Furthermore,
category. This may be be because
forbecause
RIDW and aa spatially
spatially
CCoK, the differentiated
peak flow
differentiated
correction
occurrence was
time not
of adopted
the other in
four this category,
methods was and the
consistent transformation
with
correction was not adopted in this category, and the transformation of rain to runoff is a temporal the of rain
measurement, to runoff
and is
the a temporal
difference
and
between spatial
them process.
was the If the
value correlation
of peak length
flow. The of random
lagged phaseerrors
of
and spatial process. If the correlation length of random errors is close to the catchment’s response is
the close
double to the
peak catchment’s
flows in response
RIDW and
time,flow
peak
time, random
randomin CCoK errors
errors was will
will be averaged
averaged one
approximately
be out to
out to aa lower
hour. lower extentto
Compared
extent [53]. For
lineFor
[53]. the chosen
A and
the chosen methods,
line B, clear rainfall
methods, both
both FBRK
random
FBRK
and
errors KED
in exhibited
RIDW and a
CCoKlow variation
were found, of approximately
and the response 0.6.
and KED exhibited a low variation of approximately 0.6. The median ranking of RIDW in LOOCV ofThe
the median
runoff ranking
model of RIDW
performed in LOOCV
differently.
was
Itwas different
is known
different thattothe
to its performance
its performance
transformation in runoff
in runoff simulations
of precipitation
simulations than CCoK
to than
runoff CCoK and RK.
is a smoothing
and RK. ItIt operation
should be
should be in
noted that
boththat
noted the
space
the
potential
and time. of
potential of giving
For giving the merging
this catchment,
the merging products
a quick
products as hydrological
response
as hydrological
time leads to input is also
a failure
input is also a function
in athefunction
“smoothing of further
of further
effect.”multiple
If the
multiple
factors,
rainfall including
accumulation the ismethodological
larger than the choices
response in the
time merging
of catchment,
factors, including the methodological choices in the merging process, the climatological conditions process,
the the climatological
performance of these conditions
methods
in the
will
in the basins, structural
be improved
basins, structural
[53]. model errors,
model errors, and and the the cross
cross uncertainties
uncertainties in in the
the entire
entire merging
merging and and
hydrological
In this application
section, the [59].
fitness Moreover,
of the in
simulated order
flow to assess
driven the
by performance
different
hydrological application [59]. Moreover, in order to assess the performance of hydrological variables merging of hydrological
products was variables
used to
while
assess considering
the performance spatial
of observations,
these products. temporal
The observations
hydrological
while considering spatial observations, temporal observations must be taken into considerationperformance must be
of taken
the into
merging consideration
methods was
because
not as good
because products
products generated
as expected.
generated by aa distributed
It is notable
by distributed
that, in runoffhydrological
simulations,
hydrological model
model these or methods
or semi-distributed model, ranked
all significantly
semi-distributed model, such as
such as
stream flow, are found to be sensitive to different high-resolution
stream flow, are found to be sensitive to different high-resolution precipitation [60]. precipitation [60].

5. Conclusions
5. Conclusions
In this
In this paper,
paper, radar-rain
radar-rain gauge
gauge merging
merging categories
categories were
were conducted.
conducted. Eight
Eight different
different storm
storm
events were chosen from two catchments in semi-humid and semi-arid areas of Northern China to
Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 363 21 of 25

the lowest in the bias adjustment category. This may be because a spatially differentiated correction was
not adopted in this category, and the transformation of rain to runoff is a temporal and spatial process.
If the correlation length of random errors is close to the catchment’s response time, random errors
will be averaged out to a lower extent [53]. For the chosen methods, both FBRK and KED exhibited
a low variation of approximately 0.6. The median ranking of RIDW in LOOCV was different to its
performance in runoff simulations than CCoK and RK. It should be noted that the potential of giving
the merging products as hydrological input is also a function of further multiple factors, including the
methodological choices in the merging process, the climatological conditions in the basins, structural
model errors, and the cross uncertainties in the entire merging and hydrological application [59].
Moreover, in order to assess the performance of hydrological variables while considering spatial
observations, temporal observations must be taken into consideration because products generated
by a distributed hydrological model or semi-distributed model, such as stream flow, are found to be
sensitive to different high-resolution precipitation [60].

5. Conclusions
In this paper, radar-rain gauge merging categories were conducted. Eight different storm events
were chosen from two catchments in semi-humid and semi-arid areas of Northern China to test six
different radar-rain gauge-merging methods that belong to three categories using a LOOCV and
a rainfall-runoff model (Hybrid-Hebei model). We generated six merged radar-rain gauge rainfall
products and compared their performances at gauged location estimations to further their effectiveness
as inputs to a semi-distributed rainfall-runoff model of the two study catchments, the Zijingguan and
the Fuping catchments in the Northern China. Their relative performances were assessed based on the
LOOCV and compared. Two main conclusions can be drawn:
(1) The merging methods have significant potential to improve the quality of rainfall estimates.
The integration category performed best in most cases. The bias adjustment category always performed
significantly worse. The interpolation category ranked between the aforementioned. The degree of
improvement can be a function of merging method that is affected by the quality of both the data
and the ability to capture small-scale rainfall features and methodological factors. The total bias of
the merging products is because of components of merging methods or other uncertainties. This
means that the use of merging methods, without considering the small-scale rainfall features, can be
misleading. The quality and representativeness of the radar and rain gauge data should be carefully
considered with refinements to mathematical techniques.
(2) In this study, we assumed that a higher quality of the merging products would be indicated
from agreements between the simulated and observed runoff using the merging products as the
input of the rainfall-runoff model. As expected, the results revealed that a higher quality of merging
products indicated a better agreement between the observed and simulated runoff. However, the
precipitation estimation random errors will be averaged out to a lower extent when the correlation
length of random errors is close to the catchment’s response time. Thus, it is hard to know if the
streamflow simulation errors were due to precipitation estimation random errors or the rainfall-runoff
model’s structural errors.
It should be noted that the computational requirements and runtimes are a significant challenge
in the merging process. In general, the bias adjustment methods are the least complex and are easy
to compute. The interpolation methods are computed relying on the solution of the kriging system,
which increases the computational complexity by adding the variables. The integration methods are
the most complex and will continuously increase with radar QPE of higher spatial resolution.
In conclusion, this synthetic study demonstrated the potential benefit of the radar-rain
gauge-merged rainfall precipitation at a high spatial resolution. The performance in gauged locations
evaluation and hydrological application based on the different merging methods was also demonstrated.
It is should be noted that the quality of radar QPE will be improved in the future with the increasing
available of dual-polarization radars [61]. As discussed in Section 4.1, the quality of QPE plays a
Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 363 22 of 25

critical role on the performance of different merging methods, in which the spatial information of QPE
is employed in different merging techniques. It is recommended that the three merging categories are
tested in combination with the higher quality QPEs, and it is critical to study how the quality of QPE
affects the performance of these merging methods [44]. Furthermore, with the increasing of monitoring
stations, a further work should be implemented to study the affection of different density of rain gauges
on the merging performance in the future. Notably, the conditions and assumptions of this study,
including the hydrology parameters chosen and the Gaussian assumptions in the kriging, are merely
simplifications of reality. The difference between the theoretical study and simulated data in this study
is that the rainfall observations from radar or rain gauge in reality are even more complicated due to
dynamic spatial changes.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, Q.Q. and J.L.; methodology, Q.Q.; software, Q.Q.; validation, Q.Q., C.L.
and Y.J.; formal analysis, J.L. and J.T.; investigation, W.W.; resources, C.L.; data curation, F.Y.; writing—original
draft preparation, Q.Q. and J.L.; writing—review and editing, Q.Q. and J.T.; visualization, Q.Q.; supervision, Q.Q.
and Y.J.; project administration, F.Y.; funding acquisition, C.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published
version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (51822906), the National
Key Research and Development Project (2017YFC1502405), the Major Science and Technology Program for Water
Pollution Control and Treatment (2018ZX07110001), and the IWHR Research & Development Support Program
(WR0145B732017).
Acknowledgments: Thanks to Alexandre Wadoux for help on KED computation; thanks to Xinyi Li for help on
scatter figure.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Varlas, G.; Anagnostou, M.; Spyrou, C.; Papadopoulos, A.; Kalogiros, J.; Mentzafou, A.; Michaelides, S.;
Baltas, E.; Karymbalis, E.; Katsafados, P. A multi-platform hydrometeorological analysis of the flash flood
event of 15 November 2017 in Attica, Greece. Remote Sens. 2019, 11, 45. [CrossRef]
2. Salvadore, E.; Bronders, J.; Batelaan, O. Hydrological modelling of urbanized catchments: A review and
future directions. J. Hydrol. 2015, 529, 62–81. [CrossRef]
3. Westra, S.; Fowler, H.; Evans, J.; Alexander, L.; Berg, P.; Johnson, F.; Kendon, E.; Lenderink, G.; Roberts, N.
Future changes to the intensity and frequency of short-duration extreme rainfall. Rev. Geophys. 2014, 52,
522–555. [CrossRef]
4. Molnar, P.; Fatichi, S.; Gaál, L.; Szolgay, J.; Burlando, P. Storm type effects on super Clausius–Clapeyron
scaling of intense rainstorm properties with air temperature. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2015, 19, 1753–1766.
[CrossRef]
5. Lobligeois, F.; Andréassian, V.; Perrin, C.; Tabary, P.; Loumagne, C. When does higher spatial resolution
rainfall information improve streamflow simulation? An evaluation using 3620 flood events. Hydrol. Earth
Syst. Sci. 2014, 18, 575–594. [CrossRef]
6. Nikolopoulos, E.I.; Anagnostou, E.N.; Borga, M.; Vivoni, E.R.; Papadopoulos, A. Sensitivity of a mountain
basin flash flood to initial wetness condition and rainfall variability. J. Hydrol. 2011, 402, 165–178. [CrossRef]
7. Van de Beek, C.; Leijnse, H.; Stricker, J.; Uijlenhoet, R.; Russchenberg, H. Performance of high-resolution
X-band radar for rainfall measurement in The Netherlands. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2010, 14, 205–221.
[CrossRef]
8. Berne, A.; Krajewski, W.F. Radar for hydrology: Unfulfilled promise or unrecognized potential? Adv. Water
Resour. 2013, 51, 357–366. [CrossRef]
9. He, X.; Refsgaard, J.C.; Sonnenborg, T.O.; Vejen, F.; Jensen, K.H. Statistical analysis of the impact of radar
rainfall uncertainties on water resources modeling. Water Resour. Res. 2011, 47, W09526. [CrossRef]
10. Chang, W.-Y.; Vivekanandan, J.; Ikeda, K.; Lin, P.-L. Quantitative precipitation estimation of the epic 2013
Colorado flood event: Polarization radar-based variational scheme. J. Appl. Meteorol. Clim. 2016, 55,
1477–1495. [CrossRef]
11. McKee, J.L.; Binns, A.D. A review of gauge-radar merging methods for quantitative precipitation estimation
in hydrology. Can. Water Resour. J. 2016, 41, 186–203. [CrossRef]
Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 363 23 of 25

12. Gou, Y.; Ma, Y.; Chen, H.; Yin, J. Utilization of a C-band polarimetric radar for severe rainfall event analysis
in complex terrain over eastern China. Remote Sens. 2019, 11, 22. [CrossRef]
13. Wilson, J.W. Integration of radar and raingage data for improved rainfall measurement. J. Appl. Meteorol. Clim.
1970, 9, 489–497. [CrossRef]
14. Arsenault, R.; Brissette, F. Determining the optimal spatial distribution of weather station networks for
hydrological modeling purposes using RCM datasets: An experimental approach. J. Hydrometeorol. 2014, 15,
517–526. [CrossRef]
15. Bárdossy, A.; Das, T. Influence of rainfall observation network on model calibration and application. Hydrol.
Earth Syst. Sci. 2008, 12, 77–89. [CrossRef]
16. Habib, E.; Haile, A.T.; Tian, Y.; Joyce, R.J. Evaluation of the high-resolution CMORPH satellite rainfall product
using dense rain gauge observations and radar-based estimates. J. Hydrometeorol. 2012, 13, 1784–1798.
[CrossRef]
17. Goudenhoofdt, E.; Delobbe, L. Generation and verification of rainfall estimates from 10-yr volumetric
weather radar measurements. J. Hydrometeorol. 2016, 17, 1223–1242. [CrossRef]
18. Wang, L.-P.; Ochoa-Rodríguez, S.; Onof, C.; Willems, P. Singularity-sensitive gauge-based radar rainfall
adjustment methods for urban hydrological applications. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2015, 19, 4001–4021.
[CrossRef]
19. Jewell, S.A.; Gaussiat, N. An assessment of kriging-based rain-gauge–radar merging techniques. Q. J. R.
Meteor. Soc. 2015, 141, 2300–2313. [CrossRef]
20. McKee, J.L. Evaluation of Gauge-Radar Merging Methods for Quantitative Precipitation Estimation in
Hydrology: A Case Study in the Upper Thames River Basin. Master’s Thesis, The University of Western
Ontario, London, ON, Canada, 2015.
21. Wang, L.P.; Ochoa-Rodríguez, S.; Simões, N.E.; Onof, C.; Maksimović, C. Radar-raingauge data combination
techniques: A revision and analysis of their suitability for urban hydrology. Water Sci. Technol. 2013, 68,
737–747. [CrossRef]
22. Todini, E. A Bayesian technique for conditioning radar precipitation estimates to rain-gauge measurements.
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2001, 5, 187–199. [CrossRef]
23. Goovaerts, P. Geostatistics for Natural Resources Evaluation; Oxford University Press on Demand: Oxford,
UK, 1997.
24. Sinclair, S.; Pegram, G. Combining radar and rain gauge rainfall estimates using conditional merging. Atmos.
Sci. Lett. 2005, 6, 19–22. [CrossRef]
25. Villarini, G.; Mandapaka, P.V.; Krajewski, W.F.; Moore, R.J. Rainfall and sampling uncertainties: A rain gauge
perspective. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 2008, 113. [CrossRef]
26. Schuurmans, J.; Bierkens, M.; Pebesma, E.; Uijlenhoet, R. Automatic prediction of high-resolution daily
rainfall fields for multiple extents: The potential of operational radar. J. Hydrometeorol. 2007, 8, 1204–1224.
[CrossRef]
27. Cho, Y.; Engel, B.A. NEXRAD quantitative precipitation estimations for hydrologic simulation using a hybrid
hydrologic model. J. Hydrometeorol. 2017, 18, 25–47. [CrossRef]
28. Cole, S.J.; Moore, R.J. Hydrological modelling using raingauge-and radar-based estimators of areal rainfall.
J. Hydrol. 2008, 358, 159–181. [CrossRef]
29. Reichert, P.; Mieleitner, J. Analyzing input and structural uncertainty of nonlinear dynamic models with
stochastic, time-dependent parameters. Water Resour. Res. 2009, 45, W10402. [CrossRef]
30. Anagnostou, M.; Nikolopoulos, E.; Kalogiros, J.; Anagnostou, E.; Marra, F.; Mair, E.; Bertoldi, G.; Tappeiner, U.;
Borga, M. Advancing precipitation estimation and streamflow simulations in complex terrain with X-band
dual-polarization radar observations. Remote Sens. 2018, 10, 1258. [CrossRef]
31. Rico-Ramirez, M.; Liguori, S.; Schellart, A. Quantifying radar-rainfall uncertainties in urban drainage flow
modelling. J. Hydrol. 2015, 528, 17–28. [CrossRef]
32. Nanding, N.; Rico-Ramirez, M.A.; Han, D. Comparison of different radar-raingauge rainfall merging
techniques. J. Hydroinform. 2015, 17, 422–445. [CrossRef]
33. Ochoa-Rodriguez, S.; Wang, L.P.; Willems, P.; Onof, C. A review of radar-rain gauge data merging methods
and their potential for urban hydrological applications. Water Resour. Res. 2019, 55, 6356–6391. [CrossRef]
Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 363 24 of 25

34. Borup, M.; Grum, M.; Linde, J.J.; Mikkelsen, P.S. Dynamic gauge adjustment of high-resolution X-band
radar data for convective rain storms: Model-based evaluation against measured combined sewer overflow.
J. Hydrol. 2016, 539, 687–699. [CrossRef]
35. Wood, S.; Jones, D.; Moore, R. Static and dynamic calibration of radar data for hydrological use. Hydrol. Earth
Syst. Sci. 2000, 4, 545–554. [CrossRef]
36. Smith, J.A.; Baeck, M.L.; Meierdiercks, K.L.; Miller, A.J.; Krajewski, W.F. Radar rainfall estimation for flash
flood forecasting in small urban watersheds. Adv. Water Resour. 2007, 30, 2087–2097. [CrossRef]
37. Kitzmiller, D.; Miller, D.; Fulton, R.; Ding, F. Radar and multisensor precipitation estimation techniques in
National Weather Service hydrologic operations. J. Hydrol. Eng. 2013, 18, 133–142. [CrossRef]
38. Seo, D.J.; Krajewski, W.F.; Bowles, D.S. Stochastic interpolation of rainfall data from rain gages and radar
using cokriging: 1. Design of experiments. Water Resour. Res. 1990, 26, 469–477. [CrossRef]
39. Chiles, J.-P.; Delfiner, P. Geostatistics: Modeling Spatial Uncertainty; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA,
2009; Volume 497.
40. Velasco-Forero, C.A.; Sempere-Torres, D.; Cassiraga, E.F.; Gómez-Hernández, J.J. A non-parametric automatic
blending methodology to estimate rainfall fields from rain gauge and radar data. Adv. Water Resour. 2009,
32, 986–1002. [CrossRef]
41. Shmaryan, L.; Journel, A. Two Markov models and their application. Math. Geol. 1999, 31, 965–988.
[CrossRef]
42. Yang, P.; Ng, T.L. Fast Bayesian Regression Kriging Method for Real-Time Merging of Radar, Rain Gauge,
and Crowdsourced Rainfall Data. Water Resour. Res. 2019, 55, 3194–3214. [CrossRef]
43. Cecinati, F.; Wani, O.; Rico-Ramirez, M.A. Comparing Approaches to Deal with Non-Gaussianity of Rainfall
Data in Kriging-Based Radar-Gauge Rainfall Merging. Water Resour. Res. 2017, 53, 8999–9018. [CrossRef]
44. Erdin, R.; Frei, C.; Künsch, H.R. Data transformation and uncertainty in geostatistical combination of radar
and rain gauges. J. Hydrometeorol. 2012, 13, 1332–1346. [CrossRef]
45. Haberlandt, U. Geostatistical interpolation of hourly precipitation from rain gauges and radar for a large-scale
extreme rainfall event. J. Hydrol. 2007, 332, 144–157. [CrossRef]
46. Wadoux, A.M.-C.; Brus, D.J.; Rico-Ramirez, M.A.; Heuvelink, G.B. Sampling design optimisation for rainfall
prediction using a non-stationary geostatistical model. Adv. Water Resour. 2017, 107, 126–138. [CrossRef]
47. Tian, J.; Liu, J.; Yan, D.; Ding, L.; Li, C. Ensemble flood forecasting based on a coupled atmospheric-hydrological
modeling system with data assimilation. Atmos. Res. 2019, 224, 127–137. [CrossRef]
48. Shen, Y.; Hong, Z.; Pan, Y.; Yu, J.; Maguire, L. China’s 1 km Merged Gauge, Radar and Satellite Experimental
Precipitation Dataset. Remote Sens. 2018, 10, 264. [CrossRef]
49. Zhong, L.; Liu, L.; Gu, S. An algorithm of identifying convective and echo in mixed precipitation and its
application in estimating rainfall intensity. Plateau Meteorol. 2007, 26, 593–602. [CrossRef]
50. Zhang, J.; Langston, C.; Howard, K. Brightband identification based on vertical profiles of reflectivity from
the WSR-88D. J. Atmos. Ocean. Technol. 2008, 25, 1859–1872. [CrossRef]
51. Manz, B.; Buytaert, W.; Zulkafli, Z.; Lavado, W.; Willems, B.; Robles, L.A.; Rodríguez-Sánchez, J.P.
High-resolution satellite-gauge merged precipitation climatologies of the Tropical Andes. J. Geophys.
Res. Atmos. 2016, 121, 1190–1207. [CrossRef]
52. Foehn, A.; Hernández, J.G.; Schaefli, B.; De Cesare, G. Spatial interpolation of precipitation from multiple
rain gauge networks and weather radar data for operational applications in Alpine catchments. J. Hydrol.
2018, 563, 1092–1110. [CrossRef]
53. Heistermann, M.; Kneis, D. Benchmarking quantitative precipitation estimation by conceptual rainfall-runoff
modeling. Water Resour. Res. 2011, 47, W06514. [CrossRef]
54. Goudenhoofdt, E.; Delobbe, L. Evaluation of radar-gauge merging methods for quantitative precipitation
estimates. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2009, 13, 195–203. [CrossRef]
55. Erdin, R. Geostatistical Methods for Hourly Radar-Gauge Combination: An Explorative, Systematic Application at
Meteoswiss; MeteoSchweiz: Zürich, Switzerland, 2013.
56. García-Pintado, J.; Barberá, G.G.; Erena, M.; Castillo, V.M. Rainfall estimation by rain gauge-radar combination:
A concurrent multiplicative-additive approach. Water Resour. Res. 2009, 45, W01415. [CrossRef]
57. Ochoa-Rodriguez, S.; Wang, L.; Bailey, A.; Schellart, A.; Willems, P.; Onof, C. Evaluation of radar-rain gauge
merging methods for urban hydrological applications: Relative performance and impact of gauge density.
Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 363 25 of 25

In Proceedings of the UrbanRain15 Proceedings “Rainfall in Urban and Natural Systems”, Pontresina,
Switzerland, 1–5 December 2015.
58. Berndt, C.; Rabiei, E.; Haberlandt, U. Geostatistical merging of rain gauge and radar data for high temporal
resolutions and various station density scenarios. J. Hydrol. 2014, 508, 88–101. [CrossRef]
59. Kavetski, D.; Kuczera, G.; Franks, S.W. Bayesian analysis of input uncertainty in hydrological modeling: 1.
Theory. Water Resour. Res. 2006, 42. [CrossRef]
60. Koch, J.; Cornelissen, T.; Fang, Z.; Bogena, H.; Diekkrüger, B.; Kollet, S.; Stisen, S. Inter-comparison of three
distributed hydrological models with respect to seasonal variability of soil moisture patterns at a small
forested catchment. J. Hydrol. 2016, 533, 234–249. [CrossRef]
61. Huuskonen, A.; Saltikoff, E.; Holleman, I. The operational weather radar network in Europe. Bull. Am.
Meteorol. Soc. 2014, 95, 897–907. [CrossRef]

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).