In the past century, water demand increased extensively due to the rapid growth of the human population. Ground observations can reveal hydrological dynamics but are expensive in the long term. Alternatively, hydrological models could be utilized for assessing streamflow with historical observations as the control point. Despite the advancements in hydrological modeling systems, watershed modeling over mountainous regions with complex terrain remains challenging. This study utilized the multi-physical Weather Research and Forecasting Hydrological enhancement model (WRF-Hydro), fully distributed over the Amu River Basin (ARB) in Afghanistan. The calibration process focused on land surface model (LSM) physics options and hydrological parameters within the model. The findings emphasize the importance of LSM for accurate simulation of snowmelt–runoff processes over mountainous regions. Correlation coefficient (R), coefficient of determination (R2), Nash-Sutcliff efficiency (NSE), and Kling-Gupta efficiency (KGE) were adopted for accuracy assessment over five discharge observation stations at a daily time scale; overall performance results were as follows: R was 0.85–0.42, R2 was 0.73–0.17, NSE was 0.52 to −8.64, and KGE was 0.74 to −0.56. The findings of the current study can support snowmelt process simulation within the WRF-Hydro model.
Citation: Wahidullah Hussainzada, Han Soo Lee. Impact of land surface model schemes in snow-dominated arid and semiarid watersheds using the WRF-hydro modeling systems[J]. AIMS Geosciences, 2024, 10(2): 312-332. doi: 10.3934/geosci.2024018
[1] | Ye Shuang, Feng Qi . Integral inequalities of Hermite-Hadamard type for GA-F-convex functions. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(9): 9582-9589. doi: 10.3934/math.2021557 |
[2] | Thongchai Botmart, Soubhagya Kumar Sahoo, Bibhakar Kodamasingh, Muhammad Amer Latif, Fahd Jarad, Artion Kashuri . Certain midpoint-type Fejér and Hermite-Hadamard inclusions involving fractional integrals with an exponential function in kernel. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(3): 5616-5638. doi: 10.3934/math.2023283 |
[3] | Shuang-Shuang Zhou, Saima Rashid, Muhammad Aslam Noor, Khalida Inayat Noor, Farhat Safdar, Yu-Ming Chu . New Hermite-Hadamard type inequalities for exponentially convex functions and applications. AIMS Mathematics, 2020, 5(6): 6874-6901. doi: 10.3934/math.2020441 |
[4] | Yousaf Khurshid, Muhammad Adil Khan, Yu-Ming Chu . Conformable integral version of Hermite-Hadamard-Fejér inequalities via η-convex functions. AIMS Mathematics, 2020, 5(5): 5106-5120. doi: 10.3934/math.2020328 |
[5] | Muhammad Amer Latif, Mehmet Kunt, Sever Silvestru Dragomir, İmdat İşcan . Post-quantum trapezoid type inequalities. AIMS Mathematics, 2020, 5(4): 4011-4026. doi: 10.3934/math.2020258 |
[6] | Saad Ihsan Butt, Ahmet Ocak Akdemir, Muhammad Nadeem, Nabil Mlaiki, İşcan İmdat, Thabet Abdeljawad . (m,n)-Harmonically polynomial convex functions and some Hadamard type inequalities on the co-ordinates. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(5): 4677-4690. doi: 10.3934/math.2021275 |
[7] | Wenbing Sun, Rui Xu . Some new Hermite-Hadamard type inequalities for generalized harmonically convex functions involving local fractional integrals. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(10): 10679-10695. doi: 10.3934/math.2021620 |
[8] | Eze R. Nwaeze, Muhammad Adil Khan, Ali Ahmadian, Mohammad Nazir Ahmad, Ahmad Kamil Mahmood . Fractional inequalities of the Hermite–Hadamard type for m-polynomial convex and harmonically convex functions. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(2): 1889-1904. doi: 10.3934/math.2021115 |
[9] | Sabila Ali, Shahid Mubeen, Rana Safdar Ali, Gauhar Rahman, Ahmed Morsy, Kottakkaran Sooppy Nisar, Sunil Dutt Purohit, M. Zakarya . Dynamical significance of generalized fractional integral inequalities via convexity. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(9): 9705-9730. doi: 10.3934/math.2021565 |
[10] | Aqeel Ahmad Mughal, Deeba Afzal, Thabet Abdeljawad, Aiman Mukheimer, Imran Abbas Baloch . Refined estimates and generalization of some recent results with applications. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(10): 10728-10741. doi: 10.3934/math.2021623 |
In the past century, water demand increased extensively due to the rapid growth of the human population. Ground observations can reveal hydrological dynamics but are expensive in the long term. Alternatively, hydrological models could be utilized for assessing streamflow with historical observations as the control point. Despite the advancements in hydrological modeling systems, watershed modeling over mountainous regions with complex terrain remains challenging. This study utilized the multi-physical Weather Research and Forecasting Hydrological enhancement model (WRF-Hydro), fully distributed over the Amu River Basin (ARB) in Afghanistan. The calibration process focused on land surface model (LSM) physics options and hydrological parameters within the model. The findings emphasize the importance of LSM for accurate simulation of snowmelt–runoff processes over mountainous regions. Correlation coefficient (R), coefficient of determination (R2), Nash-Sutcliff efficiency (NSE), and Kling-Gupta efficiency (KGE) were adopted for accuracy assessment over five discharge observation stations at a daily time scale; overall performance results were as follows: R was 0.85–0.42, R2 was 0.73–0.17, NSE was 0.52 to −8.64, and KGE was 0.74 to −0.56. The findings of the current study can support snowmelt process simulation within the WRF-Hydro model.
The radial addition K˜+L of star sets K and L can be defined by
ρ(K˜+L,⋅)=ρ(K,⋅)+ρ(L,⋅), |
where a star set is a compact set that is star-shaped at o and contains o and ρ(K,⋅) denotes the radial function of star set K. The radial function is defined by
ρ(K,u)=max{c≥0:cu∈K}, | (1.1) |
for u∈Sn−1, where Sn−1 denotes the surface of the unit ball centered at the origin. The initial study of the radial addition can be found in [1, p. 235]. K is called a star body if ρ(K,⋅) is positive and continuous, and let Sn denote the set of star bodies. The radial addition and volume are the basis and core of the dual Brunn-Minkowski theory (see, e.g., [2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10]). It is important that the dual Brunn-Minkowski theory can count among its successes the solution of the Busemann-Petty problem in [3,11,12,13,14]. Recently, it has turned to a study extending from Lp-dual Brunn-Minkowski theory to Orlicz dual Brunn-Minkowski theory. The Orlicz dual Brunn-Minkowski theory and its dual have attracted people's attention [15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28].
For K∈Sn and u∈Sn−1, the half chord of K in the direction u is defined by
d(K,u)=12(ρ(K,u)+ρ(K,−u)). |
If there exists a constant λ>0 such that d(K,u)=λd(L,u), for all u∈Sn−1, then star bodies K,L are said to have similar chord (see Gardner [1] or Schneider [29]). Lu [30] introduced the i-th chord integral of star bodies: For K∈Sn and 0≤i<n, the i-th chord integral of K, is denoted by Bi(K), is defined by
Bi(K)=1n∫Sn−1d(K,u)n−idS(u). | (1.2) |
Obviously, for i=0, Bi(K) becomes the chord integral B(K).
The main aim of the present article is to generalize the chord integrals to Orlicz space. We introduce a new affine geometric quantity which we shall call Orlicz mixed chord integrals. The fundamental notions and conclusions of the chord integral and related isoperimetric inequalities for the chord integral are extended to an Orlicz setting. The new inequalities in special cases yield the Lp-dual Minkowski and Lp-dual Brunn-Minkowski inequalities for the Lp-mixed chord integrals. The related concepts and inequalities of Lp-mixed chord integrals are derived. As extensions, Orlicz multiple mixed chord integrals and Orlicz-Aleksandrov-Fenchel inequality for the Orlicz multiple mixed chord integrals are also derived.
In Section 3, we introduce the following new notion of Orlicz chord addition of star bodies.
Orlicz chord addition Let K and L be star bodies, the Orlicz chord addition of K and L, is denoted by Kˇ+ϕL, is defined by
ϕ(d(K,u)d(Kˇ+ϕL,u),d(L,u)d(Kˇ+ϕL,u))=1, | (1.3) |
where u∈Sn−1, and ϕ∈Φ2, which is the set of convex functions ϕ:[0,∞)2→(0,∞) that are decreasing in each variable and satisfy ϕ(0,0)=∞ and ϕ(∞,1)=ϕ(1,∞)=1.
The particular instance of interest corresponds to using (1.3) with ϕ(x1,x2)=ϕ1(x1)+εϕ2(x2) for ε>0 and some ϕ1,ϕ2∈Φ, which are the sets of convex functions ϕ1,ϕ2:[0,∞)→(0,∞) that are decreasing and satisfy ϕ1(0)=ϕ2(0)=∞, ϕ1(∞)=ϕ2(∞)=0 and ϕ1(1)=ϕ2(1)=1.
In accordance with the spirit of Aleksandrov [31], Fenchel and Jessen's [32] introduction of mixed quermassintegrals, and introduction of Lutwak's [33] Lp-mixed quermassintegrals, we are based on the study of first-order variations of the chord integrals. In Section 4, we prove that the first order Orlicz variation of the mixed chord integral can be expressed as: For K,L∈Sn, ϕ1,ϕ2∈Φ, 0≤i<n and ε>0,
ddε|ε=0+Bi(Kˇ+ϕε⋅L)=(n−i)⋅1(ϕ1)′r(1)⋅Bϕ2,i(K,L), | (1.4) |
where (ϕ1)′r(1) denotes the value of the right derivative of convex function ϕ1 at point 1. In this first order variational equation (1.4), we find a new geometric quantity. Based on this, we extract the required geometric quantity, denoted by Bϕ,i(K,L) which we shall call Orlicz mixed chord integrals of K and L, as follows
Bϕ2,i(K,L)=1n−i⋅(ϕ1)′r(1)⋅ddε|ε=0+Bi(Kˇ+ϕε⋅L). | (1.5) |
We show also that the new affine geometric quantity has an integral representation as follows:
Bϕ,i(K,L)=1n∫Sn−1ϕ(d(L,u)d(K,u))d(K,u)n−idS(u). | (1.6) |
When ϕ(t)=t−p and p≥1, the new affine geometric quantity becomes a new Lp-mixed chord integrals of K and L, denoted by Bp,i(K,L), which as is in (2.7).
In Section 5, we establish an Orlicz Minkowski inequality for the mixed chord and Orlicz mixed chord integrals.
Orlicz Minkowski inequality for the Orlicz mixed chord integrals If K,L∈Sn, 0≤i<n and ϕ∈Φ, then
Bϕ,i(K,L)≥Bi(K)⋅ϕ((Bi(L)Bi(K))1/(n−i)). | (1.7) |
If ϕ is strictly convex, the equality holds if and only if K and L are similar chord.
When ϕ(t)=t−p and p≥1, (1.7) becomes a new Lp-Minkowski inequality (2.8) for the Lp-mixed chord integrals.
In Section 6, as an application, we establish an Orlicz Brunn-Minkowski inequality for the Orlicz chord additions and the mixed chord integrals:
Orlicz Brunn-Minkowski inequality for the Orlicz chord additions If K,L∈Sn, 0≤i<n and ϕ∈Φ2, then
1≥ϕ((Bi(K)Bi(Kˇ+ϕL))1/(n−i),(Bi(L)Bi(Kˇ+ϕL))1/(n−i)). | (1.8) |
If ϕ is strictly convex, the equality holds if and only if K and L are similar chord.
When ϕ(t)=t−p and p≥1, (1.8) becomes a new Lp-Brunn-Minkowski inequality (2.9) for the mixed chord integrals.
A new isoperimetric inequality for the chord integrals is given in Section 7. In Section 8, Orlicz multiple mixed chord integrals is introduced and Orlicz-Aleksandrov-Fenchel inequality for the Orlicz multiple mixed chord integrals is established.
The setting for this paper is n-dimensional Euclidean space Rn. A body in Rn is a compact set equal to the closure of its interior. For a compact set K⊂Rn, we write V(K) for the (n-dimensional) Lebesgue measure of K and call this the volume of K. Associated with a compact subset K of Rn which is star-shaped with respect to the origin and contains the origin, its radial function is ρ(K,⋅):Sn−1→[0,∞) is defined by
ρ(K,u)=max{λ≥0:λu∈K}. |
Note that the class (star sets) is closed under union, intersection, and intersection with subspace. The radial function is homogeneous of degree −1, that is (see e.g. [1]),
ρ(K,ru)=r−1ρ(K,u), |
for all u∈Sn−1 and r>0. Let ˜δ denote the radial Hausdorff metric, as follows: if K,L∈Sn, then
˜δ(K,L)=|ρ(K,u)−ρ(L,u)|∞. |
From the definition of the radial function, it follows immediately that for A∈GL(n) the radial function of the image AK={Ay:y∈K} of K is given by (see e.g. [29])
ρ(AK,x)=ρ(K,A−1x), | (2.1) |
for all x∈Rn.
For Ki∈Sn,i=1,…,m, define the real numbers RKi and rKi by
RKi=maxu∈Sn−1d(Ki,u),andrKi=minu∈Sn−1d(Ki,u). | (2.2) |
Obviously, 0<rKi<RKi, for all Ki∈Sn. Writing R=max{RKi} and r=min{rKi}, where i=1,…,m.
If K1,…,Kn∈Sn, the mixed chord integral of K1,…,Kn, is denoted by B(K1,…,Kn), is defined by (see [30])
B(K1,…,Kn)=1n∫Sn−1d(K1,u)⋯d(Kn,u)dS(u). |
If K1=⋯=Kn−i=K, Kn−i+1=⋯=Kn=L, the mixed chord integral B(K1,…,Kn) is written as Bi(K,L). If L=B (B is the unit ball centered at the origin), the mixed chord integral Bi(K,L)=Bi(K,B) is written as Bi(K) and called the i-th chord integral of K. Obviously, For K∈Sn and 0≤i<n, we have
Bi(K)=1n∫Sn−1d(K,u)n−idS(u). | (2.3) |
If K1=⋯=Kn−i−1=K, Kn−i=⋯=Kn−1=B and Kn=L, the mixed chord integral B(K,…,K⏟n−i−1,B,…,B⏟i,L) is written as Bi(K,L) and called the i-th mixed chord integral of K and L. For K,L∈Sn and 0≤i<n, it is easy to see that
Bi(K,L)=1n∫Sn−1d(K,u)n−i−1d(L,u)dS(u). | (2.4) |
This integral representation (2.4), together with the Hölder inequality, immediately give the Minkowski inequality for the i-th mixed chord integral: If K,L∈Sn and 0≤i<n, then
Bi(K,L)n−i≤Bi(K)n−i−1Bi(L), | (2.5) |
with equality if and only if K and L are similar chord.
Definition 2.1 (The Lp-chord addition) Let K,L∈Sn and p≥1, the Lp chord addition ˇ+p of star bodies K and L, is defined by
d(Kˇ+pL,u)−p=d(K,u)−p+d(L,u)−p, | (2.6) |
for u∈Sn−1.
Obviously, putting ϕ(x1,x2)=x−p1+x−p2 and p≥1 in (1.3), (1.3) becomes (2.6). The following result follows immediately from (2.6) with p≥1.
−npn−ilimε→0+Bi(Kˇ+pε⋅L)−Bi(L)ε=1n∫Sn−1d(K,u)n−i+pd(L,u)−pdS(u). |
Definition 2.2 (The Lp-mixed chord integrals) Let K,L∈Sn, 0≤i<n and p≥1, the Lp-mixed chord integral of star K and L, denoted by Bp,i(K,L), is defined by
Bp,i(K,L)=1n∫Sn−1d(K,u)n−i+pd(L,u)−pdS(u). | (2.7) |
Obviously, when K=L, the Lp-mixed chord integral Bp,i(K,K) becomes the i-th chord integral Bi(K). This integral representation (2.7), together with the Hölder inequality, immediately gives:
Proposition 2.3 If K,L∈Sn, 0≤i<n and p≥1, then
Bp,i(K,L)n−i≥Bi(K)n−i+pBi(L)−p, | (2.8) |
with equality if and only if K and L are similar chord.
Proposition 2.4 If K,L∈Sn, 0≤i<n and p≥1, then
Bi(Kˇ+pL)−p/(n−i)≥Bi(K)−p/(n−i)+Bi(L)−p/(n−i), | (2.9) |
with equality if and only if K and L are similar chord.
Proof From (2.6) and (2.7), it is easily seen that the Lp-chord integrals is linear with respect to the Lp-chord addition, and together with inequality (2.8), we have for p≥1
Bp,i(Q,Kˇ+pL)=Bp,i(Q,K)+Bp,i(Q,L)≥Bi(Q)(n−i+p)/(n−i)(Bi(K)−p/(n−i)+Bi(L)−p/(n−i)), |
with equality if and only if K and L are similar chord.
Take Kˇ+pL for Q, recall that Bp,i(Q,Q)=Bi(Q), inequality (2.9) follows easily.
Throughout this paper, the standard orthonormal basis for Rn will be {e1,…,en}. Let Φn, n∈N, denote the set of convex functions ϕ:[0,∞)n→(0,∞) that are strictly decreasing in each variable and satisfy ϕ(0)=∞ and ϕ(ej)=1, j=1,…,n. When n=1, we shall write Φ instead of Φ1. The left derivative and right derivative of a real-valued function f are denoted by (f)′l and (f)′r, respectively. We first define the Orlicz chord addition.
Definition 3.1 (The Orlicz chord addition) Let m≥2,ϕ∈Φm, Kj∈Sn and j=1,…,m, the Orlicz chord addition of K1,…,Km, is denoted by ˇ+ϕ(K1,…,Km), is defined by
d(ˇ+ϕ(K1,…,Km),u)=sup{λ>0:ϕ(d(K1,u)λ,…,d(Km,u)λ)≤1}, | (3.1) |
for u∈Sn−1. Equivalently, the Orlicz chord addition ˇ+ϕ(K1,…,Km) can be defined implicitly by
ϕ(d(K1,u)d(ˇ+ϕ(K1,…,Km),u),…,d(Km,u)d(ˇ+ϕ(K1,…,Km),u))=1, | (3.2) |
for all u∈Sn−1.
An important special case is obtained when
ϕ(x1,…,xm)=m∑j=1ϕj(xj), |
for some fixed ϕj∈Φ such that ϕ1(1)=⋯=ϕm(1)=1. We then write ˇ+ϕ(K1,…,Km)=K1ˇ+ϕ⋯ˇ+ϕKm. This means that K1ˇ+ϕ⋯ˇ+ϕKm is defined either by
d(K1ˇ+ϕ⋯ˇ+ϕKm,u)=sup{λ>0:m∑j=1ϕj(d(Kj,u)λ)≤1}, | (3.3) |
for all u∈Sn−1, or by the corresponding special case of (3.2).
Lemma 3.2 The Orlicz chord addition ˇ+ϕ:(Sn)m→Sn is monotonic.
Proof This follows immediately from (3.1).
Lemma 3.3 The Orlicz chord addition ˇ+ϕ:(Sn)m→Sn is GL(n) covariant.
Proof From (2.1), (3.1) and let A∈GL(n), we obtain
d(ˇ+ϕ(AK1,AK2…,AKm),u) |
=sup{λ>0:ϕ(d(AK1,u)λ,d(AK2,u)λ,…,d(AKm,u)λ)≤1}=sup{λ>0:ϕ(d(K1,A−1u)λ,d(K2,A−1u)λ,…,d(Km,A−1u)λ)≤1}=d(ˇ+ϕ(K1,…,Km),A−1u)=d(ˇ+ϕ(K1,…,Km),u). |
This shows Orlicz chord addition ˇ+ϕ is GL(n) covariant.
Lemma 3.4 Suppose K1,…,Km∈Sn. If ϕ∈Φ, then
ϕ(d(K1,u)t)+⋯+ϕ(d(Km,u)t)=1 |
if and only if
d(ˇ+ϕ(K1,…,Km),u)=t |
Proof This follows immediately from Definition 3.1.
Lemma 3.5 Suppose Km,…,Km∈Sn. If ϕ∈Φ, then
rϕ−1(1m)≤d(ˇ+ϕ(K1,…,Km),u)≤Rϕ−1(1m). |
Proof Suppose d(ˇ+ϕ(K1,…,Km),u)=t, from Lemma 3.4 and noting that ϕ is strictly deceasing on (0,∞), we have
1=ϕ(d(K1,u)t)+⋯+ϕ(d(Km,u)t)≤ϕ(rK1t)+⋯+ϕ(rKmt)=mϕ(rt). |
Noting that the inverse ϕ−1 is strictly deceasing on (0,∞), we obtain the lower bound for d(ˇ+ϕ(K1,…,Km),u):
t≥rϕ−1(1m). |
To obtain the upper estimate, observe the fact from the Lemma 3.4, together with the convexity and the fact ϕ is strictly deceasing on (0,∞), we have
1=ϕ(d(K1,u)t)+⋯+ϕ(d(Km,u)t)≥mϕ(d(K1,u)+⋯+d(Km,u)mt)≥mϕ(Rt). |
Then we obtain the upper estimate:
t≤Rϕ−1(1m). |
Lemma 3.6 The Orlicz chord addition ˇ+ϕ:(Sn)m→Sn is continuous.
Proof To see this, indeed, let Kij∈Sn, i∈N∪{0}, j=1,…,m, be such that Kij→K0j as i→∞. Let
d(ˇ+ϕ(Ki1,…,Kim),u)=ti. |
Then Lemma 3.5 shows
rijϕ−1(1m)≤ti≤Rijϕ−1(1m), |
where rij=min{rKij} and Rij=max{RKij}. Since Kij→K0j, we have RKij→RK0j<∞ and rKij→rK0j>0, and thus there exist a,b such that 0<a≤ti≤b<∞ for all i. To show that the bounded sequence {ti} converges to d(ˇ+ϕ(K01,…,K0m),u), we show that every convergent subsequence of {ti} converges to d(ˇ+ϕ(K01,…,K0m),u). Denote any subsequence of {ti} by {ti} as well, and suppose that for this subsequence, we have
ti→t∗. |
Obviously a≤t∗≤b. Noting that ϕ is a continuous function, we obtain
t∗→sup{t∗>0:ϕ(d(K01,u)t∗,…,d(K0m,u)t∗)≤1} |
=d(ˇ+ϕ(K01,…,K0m),u). |
Hence
d(ˇ+ϕ(Ki1,…,Kim),u)→d(ˇ+ϕ(K01,…,K0m),u) |
as i→∞.
This shows that the Orlicz chord addition ˇ+ϕ:(Sn)m→Sn is continuous.
Next, we define the Orlicz chord linear combination for the case m=2.
Definition 3.7 (The Orlicz chord linear combination) The Orlicz chord linear combination, denoted by ˇ+ϕ(K,L,α,β) for K,L∈Sn, and α,β≥0 (not both zero), is defined by
α⋅ϕ1(d(K,u)d(ˇ+ϕ(K,L,α,β),u))+β⋅ϕ2(d(L,u)d(ˇ+ϕ(K,L,α,β),u))=1, | (3.4) |
for ϕ1,ϕ2∈Φ and all u∈Sn−1.
We shall write Kˇ+ϕε⋅L instead of ˇ+ϕ(K,L,1,ε), for ε≥0 and assume throughout that this is defined by (3.1), if α=1,β=ε and ϕ∈Φ. We shall write Kˇ+ϕL instead of ˇ+ϕ(K,L,1,1) and call it the Orlicz chord addition of K and L.
In order to define Orlicz mixed chord integrals, we need the following Lemmas 4.1-4.4.
Lemma 4.1 Let ϕ∈Φ and ε>0. If K,L∈Sn, then Kˇ+ϕε⋅L∈Sn.
Proof Let u0∈Sn−1, and {ui}⊂Sn−1 be any subsequence such that ui→u0 as i→∞.
Let
d(Kˇ+ϕL,ui)=λi. |
Then Lemma 3.5 shows
rϕ−1(12)≤λi≤Rϕ−1(12), |
where R=max{RK,RL} and r=min{rK,rL}.
Since K,L∈Sn, we have 0<rK≤RK<∞ and 0<rL≤RL<∞, and thus there exist a,b such that 0<a≤λi≤b<∞ for all i. To show that the bounded sequence {λi} converges to d(Kˇ+ϕε⋅L,u0), we show that every convergent subsequence of {λi} converges to d(Kˇ+ϕε⋅L,u0). Denote any subsequence of {λi} by {λi} as well, and suppose that for this subsequence, we have
λi→λ0. |
Obviously a≤λ0≤b. From (3.4) and note that ϕ1,ϕ2 are continuous functions, so ϕ−11 is continuous, we obtain
λi→d(K,u0)ϕ−11(1−εϕ2(d(L,u0)λ0)) |
as i→∞. Hence
ϕ1(d(K,u0)λ0)+εϕ2(d(L,u0)λ0)=1. |
Therefore
λ0=d(Kˇ+ϕε⋅L,u0). |
That is
d(Kˇ+ϕε⋅L,ui)→d(Kˇ+ϕε⋅L,u0). |
as i→∞.
This shows that Kˇ+ϕε⋅L∈Sn.
Lemma 4.2 If K,L∈Sn, ε>0 and ϕ∈Φ, then
Kˇ+ϕε⋅L→K | (4.1) |
as ε→0+.
Proof This follows immediately from (3.4).
Lemma 4.3 If K,L∈Sn, 0≤i<n and ϕ1,ϕ2∈Φ, then
ddε|ε=0+d(Kˇ+ϕε⋅L,u)n−i=n−i(ϕ1)′r(1)⋅ϕ2(d(L,u)d(K,u))⋅d(K,u)n−i. | (4.2) |
Proof From (3.4), Lemma 4.2 and notice that ϕ−11, ϕ2 are continuous functions, we obtain for 0≤i<n
ddε|ε=0+d(Kˇ+ϕε⋅L,u)n−i |
=limε→0+(n−i)d(K,u)n−i−1(d(K,u)ϕ2(d(L,u)d(Kˇ+ϕε⋅L,u)))×limy→1−ϕ−11(y)−ϕ−11(1)y−1=n−i(ϕ1)′r(1)⋅ϕ2(d(L,u)d(K,u))⋅d(K,u)n−i, |
where
y=1−εϕ2(d(L,u)d(Kˇ+ϕε⋅L,u)), |
and note that y→1− as ε→0+.
Lemma 4.4 If ϕ∈Φ2, 0≤i<n and K,L∈Sn, then
(ϕ1)′r(1)n−i⋅ddε|ε=0+Bi(Kˇ+ϕε⋅L)=1n∫Sn−1ϕ2(d(L,u)d(K,u))⋅d(K,u)n−idS(u). | (4.3) |
Proof This follows immediately from (2.1) and Lemma 4.3.
Denoting by Bϕ,i(K,L), for any ϕ∈Φ and 0≤i<n, the integral on the right-hand side of (4.3) with ϕ2 replaced by ϕ, we see that either side of the equation (4.3) is equal to Bϕ2,i(K,L) and hence this new Orlicz mixed chord integrals Bϕ,i(K,L) has been born.
Definition 4.5 (The Orlicz mixed chord integral) For ϕ∈Φ and 0≤i<n, Orlicz mixed chord integral of star bodies K and L, Bϕ,i(K,L), is defined by
Bϕ,i(K,L)=:1n∫Sn−1ϕ(d(L,u)d(K,u))⋅d(K,u)n−idS(u). | (4.4) |
Lemma 4.6 If ϕ1,ϕ2∈Φ, 0≤i<n and K,L∈Sn, then
Bϕ2,i(K,L)=(ϕ1)′r(1)n−ilimε→0+Bi(Kˇ+ϕε⋅L)−Bi(K)ε. | (4.5) |
Proof This follows immediately from Lemma 4.4 and (4.4).
Lemma 4.7 If K,L∈Sn, ϕ∈Φ and any A∈SL(n), then for ε>0
A(Kˇ+ϕε⋅L)=(AK)ˇ+ϕε⋅(AL). | (4.6) |
Proof This follows immediately from (2.1) and (3.3).
We find easily that Bϕ,i(K,L) is invariant under simultaneous unimodular centro-affine transformation.
Lemma 4.8 If ϕ∈Φ, 0≤i<n and K,L∈Sn, then for A∈SL(n),
Bϕ,i(AK,AL)=Bϕ,i(K,L). | (4.7) |
Proof This follows immediately from Lemmas 4.6 and 4.7.
In this section, we will define a Borel measure in Sn−1, denoted by Bn,i(K,υ), which we shall call the chord measure of star body K.
Definition 5.1 (The chord measure) Let K∈Sn and 0≤i<n, the chord measure of star body K, denoted by Bn,i(K,υ), is defined by
dBn,i(K,υ)=1n⋅d(K,υ)n−iBi(K)dS(υ). | (5.1) |
Lemma 5.2 (Jensen's inequality) Let μ be a probability measure on a space X and g:X→I⊂R be a μ-integrable function, where I is a possibly infinite interval. If ψ:I→R is a convex function, then
∫Xψ(g(x))dμ(x)≥ψ(∫Xg(x)dμ(x)). | (5.2) |
If ψ is strictly convex, the equality holds if and only if g(x) is constant for μ-almost all x∈X (see [34, p. 165]).
Lemma 5.3 Suppose that ϕ:[0,∞)→(0,∞) is decreasing and convex with ϕ(0)=∞. If K,L∈Sn and 0≤i<n, then
1nBi(K)∫Sn−1ϕ(d(L,u)d(K,u))d(K,u)n−idS(u)≥ϕ((Bi(L)Bi(K))1/(n−i)). | (5.3) |
If ϕ is strictly convex, the equality holds if and only if K and L are similar chord.
Proof For K∈Sn−1, 0≤i<n and any u∈Sn−1, the chord measure d(K,u)n−inBi(K)dS(u) is a probability measure on Sn−1. Hence, from (2.4), (2.5), (5.1) and by using Jensen's inequality, and in view of ϕ is decreasing, we obtain
1nBi(K)∫Sn−1ϕ(d(L,u)d(K,u))d(K,u)n−idS(u) |
=∫Sn−1ϕ(d(L,u)d(K,u))dBn,i(K,u)≥ϕ(Bi(K,L)Bi(K))≥ϕ((Bi(L)Bi(K))1/(n−i)). |
Next, we discuss the equality in (5.3). If ϕ is strictly convex, suppose the equality holds in (5.3), form the equality necessary conditions of Jensen's inequality and (2.5), it follows that d(L,u)/d(K,u) is constant, and K and L are similar chord, respectively. This yields that there exists r>0 such that d(L,u)=rd(K,u), for all u∈Sn−1. On the other hand, suppose that K and L are similar chord, i.e. there exists λ>0 such that d(L,u)=λd(K,u) for all u∈Sn−1. Hence
1nBi(K)∫Sn−1ϕ(d(L,u)d(K,u))d(K,u)n−idS(u) |
=1nBi(K)∫Sn−1ϕ((Bi(L)Bi(K))1/(n−i))d(K,u)n−idS(u)=ϕ((Bi(L)Bi(K))1/(n−i)). |
This implies the equality in (5.3) holds.
Theorem 5.4 (Orlicz chord Minkowski inequality) If K,L∈Sn, 0≤i<n and ϕ∈Φ, then
Bϕ,i(K,L)≥Bi(K)⋅ϕ((Bi(L)Bi(K))1/(n−i)). | (5.4) |
If ϕ is strictly convex, the equality holds if and only if K and L are similar chord.
Proof This follows immediately from (4.4) and Lemma 5.3.
Corollary 5.5 If K,L∈Sn, 0≤i<n and p≥1, then
Bp,i(K,L)n−i≥Bi(K)n−i+pBi(L)−p, | (5.5) |
with equality if and only if K and L are similar chord.
Proof This follows immediately from Theorem 5.4 with ϕ1(t)=ϕ2(t)=t−p and p≥1.
Taking i=0 in (5.5), this yields Lp-Minkowski inequality: If K,L∈Sn and p≥1, then
Bp(K,L)n≥B(K)n+pB(L)−p, |
with equality if and only if K and L are similar chord.
Corollary 5.6 Let K,L∈M⊂Sn, 0≤i<n and ϕ∈Φ, and if either
Bϕ,i(Q,K)=Bϕ,i(Q,L),forallQ∈M | (5.6) |
or
Bϕ,i(K,Q)Bi(K)=Bϕ,i(L,Q)Bi(L),forallQ∈M, | (5.7) |
then K=L.
Proof Suppose (5.6) holds. Taking K for Q, then from (2.3), (4.4) and (5.3), we obtain
Bi(K)=Bϕ,i(K,L)≥Bi(K)ϕ((Bi(L)Bi(K))1/(n−i)) |
with equality if and only if K and L are similar chord. Hence
Bi(K)≤Bi(L), |
with equality if and only if K and L are similar chord. On the other hand, if taking L for Q, by similar arguments, we get Bi(K)≥Bi(L), with equality if and only if K and L are similar chord. Hence Bi(K)=Bi(L), and K and L are similar chord, it follows that K and L must be equal.
Suppose (5.7) holds. Taking L for Q, then from from (2.3), (4.4) and (5.3), we obtain
1=Bϕ,i(K,L)Bi(K)≥ϕ((Bi(L)Bi(K))1/(n−i)), |
with equality if and only if K and L are similar chord. Hence
Bi(K)≤Bi(L), |
with equality if and only if K and L are similar chord. On the other hand, if taking K for Q, by similar arguments, we get Bi(K)≥Bi(L), with equality if and only if K and L are similar chord. Hence Bi(K)=Bi(L), and K and L have similar chord, it follows that K and L must be equal.
When ϕ1(t)=ϕ2(t)=t−p and p≥1, Corollary 5.6 becomes the following result.
Corollary 5.7 Let K,L∈M⊂Sn, 0≤i<n and p≥1, and if either
Bp,i(K,Q)=Bp,i(L,Q),forallQ∈M |
or
Bp,i(K,Q)Bi(K)=Bp,i(L,Q)Bi(L),forallQ∈M, |
then K=L.
Lemma 6.1 If K,L∈Sn, 0≤i<n, and ϕ1,ϕ2∈Φ, then
Bi(Kˇ+ϕL)=Bϕ1,i(Kˇ+ϕL,K)+Bϕ2,i(Kˇ+ϕL,L). | (6.1) |
Proof From (3.1), (3.4) and (4.4), we have for Kˇ+ϕL=Q∈Sn
Bϕ1,i(Q,K)+Bϕ2,i(Q,L) |
=1n∫Sn−1ϕ(d(K,u)d(Q,u),d(L,u)d(Q,u))d(Q,u)n−idS(u) |
=Bi(Q). | (6.2) |
The completes the proof.
Lemma 6.2 Let K,L∈Sn, ε>0 and ϕ∈Φ.
(1) If K and L are similar chord, then K and Kˇ+ϕε⋅L are similar chord.
(2) If K and Kˇ+ϕε⋅L are similar chord, then K and L are similar chord.
Proof Suppose exist a constant λ>0 such that d(L,u)=λd(K,u), we have
ϕ(d(K,u)d(Kˇ+ϕε⋅L,u))+εϕ(λd(K,u)d(Kˇ+ϕε⋅L,u))=1. |
On the other hand, the exist unique constant δ>0 such that
ϕ(d(K,u)d(δK,u))+εϕ(λd(K,u)d(δK,u))=1, |
where δ satisfies that
ϕ(1δ)+εϕ(λδ)=1. |
This shows that d(Kˇ+ϕε⋅L,u)=δd(K,u).
Suppose exist a constant λ>0 such that d(Kˇ+ϕε⋅L,u)=λd(K,u). Then
ϕ(1λ)+εϕ(d(L,u)d(Kˇ+ϕε⋅L,u))=1. |
This shows that
d(L,u)d(Kˇ+ϕε⋅L,u) |
is a constant. This yields that Kˇ+ϕε⋅L and L are similar chord. Namely K and L are similar chord.
Theorem 6.3 (Orlicz chord Brunn-Minkowski inequality) If K,L∈Sn, 0≤i<n and ϕ∈Φ2, then
1≥ϕ((Bi(K)Bi(Kˇ+ϕL))1/(n−i),(Bi(L)Bi(Kˇ+ϕL))1/(n−i)). | (6.3) |
If ϕ is strictly convex, the equality holds if and only if K and L are similar chord.
Proof From (5.4) and Lemma 6.1, we have
Bi(Kˇ+ϕL)=Bϕ1,i(Kˇ+ϕL,K)+Bϕ2,i(Kˇ+ϕL,L)≥Bi(Kˇ+ϕL)(ϕ1((Bi(K)Bi(Kˇ+ϕL))1/(n−i))+ϕ2((Bi(L)kBi(Kˇ+ϕL))1/(n−i)))=Bi(Kˇ+ϕL)ϕ((Bi(K)Bi(Kˇ+ϕL))1/(n−i),(Bi(L)Bi(Kˇ+ϕL))1/(n−i)). |
This is just inequality (6.3). From the equality condition of (5.4) and Lemma 6.3, it yields that if ϕ is strictly convex, equality in (6.3) holds if and only if K and L are similar chord.
Corollary 6.4 If K,L∈Sn, 0≤i<n and p≥1, then
Bi(Kˇ+pL)−p/(n−i)≥Bi(K)−p/(n−i)+Bi(L)−p/(n−i), | (6.4) |
with equality if and only if K and L are similar chord.
Proof This follows immediately from Theorem 6.2 with ϕ(x1,x2)=x−p1+x−p2 and p≥1.
Taking i=0 in (6.4), this yields the Lp-Brunn-Minkowski inequality for the chord integrals. If K,L∈Sn and p≥1, then
B(Kˇ+pL)−p/n≥B(K)−p/n+B(L)−p/n, |
with equality if and only if K and L are similar chord.
As a application, in the section, we give a new isoperimetric inequality for chord integrals. As we all know, the isoperimetric inequality for convex bodies can be stated below (see e.g. [26], p. 318).
The isoperimetric inequality If K is convex body in Rn, then
(V(K)V(B))n−1≤(S(K)S(B))n, | (7.1) |
with equality if and only if K is an n-ball.
Here B is the unit ball centered at the origin, V(K) denotes the volume of K and S(K) is the surface area of K, defined by (see [26], p. 318)
S(K)=limε→0V(K+εB)−V(K)ε=nV1(K,B), |
where + the usual Minkowski sum. Here, the mixed volume of convex bodies K and L, V1(K,L), defined by (see e.g. [1])
V1(K,L)=1n∫Sn−1h(L,u)dS(K,u). | (7.2) |
Next, we give some new isoperimetric inequalities for mixed chord integrals by using the Orlicz chord Minkowski inequality established in Section 5.
Theorem 7.1 (The Lp-isoperimetric inequality for mixed chord integrals) If K∈Sn, 0≤i<n and p≥1, then
(˜Bp,i(K)S(B))n−i≥(Bi(K)V(B))n−i+p, | (7.3) |
with equality if and only if K is an n-ball, where ˜Bp,i(K)=nBp,i(K,B).
Proof Putting L=B, ϕ(t)=t−p and p≥1 in Orlicz chord Minkowski inequality (5.4)
Bp,i(K,B)Bi(K)≥(Bi(B)Bi(K))−p/(n−i). |
That is
(Bp,i(K,B)Bi(K))n−i≥(Bi(K)V(B))p. |
Hence
(nBp,i(K,B)S(B))n−i≥(Bi(K)V(B))n−i+p. |
From the equality of (5.4), we find that the equality in (7.3) holds if and only if K and B are similar chord. This yields that the equality in (7.3) holds if and only if K is an n-ball.
Theorem 7.2 (The isoperimetric inequality for the chord integrals) If K∈Sn, then
(˜B(K)S(B))n≥(B(K)V(B))n+1, | (7.4) |
with equality if and only if K is an n-ball, where ˜B(K)=nB1(K,B).
Proof This follows immediately from (7.3) with p=1 and i=0.
This is just a similar form of the classical isoperimetric inequality (7.1).
As extensions, in the Section, the Orlicz mixed chord integral of K and L, Bϕ(K,L), is generalized into Orlicz multiple mixed chord integral of (n+1) star bodies L1,K1,…,Kn. Further, we generalize the Orlicz-Minklowski inequality into Orlicz-Aleksandrov-Fenchel inequality for the Orlicz multiple mixed chord integrals.
Theorem 8.1 If L1,K1,…,Kn∈Sn and ϕ1,ϕ2∈Φ, then
ddε|ε=0+B(L1ˇ+ϕε⋅K1,K2,⋯,Kn)=1n(ϕ1)′r(1) |
×∫Sn−1ϕ2(d(K1,u)d(L1,u))d(L1,u)d(K2,u)⋯d(Kn,u)dS(u). | (8.1) |
Proof This may yield by using a generalized idea and method of proving Lemma 4.4. Here, we omit the details.
Obviously, (4.3) is a special case of (8.1). Moreover, from Theorem 8.1, we can find the following definition:
Definition 8.2 (Orlicz multiple mixed chord integrals) Let L1,K1,…,Kn∈Sn and ϕ∈Φ, the Orlicz multiple mixed chord integral of (n+1) star bodies L1,K1,…,Kn, is denoted by Bϕ(L1,K1,…,Kn), is defined by
Bϕ(L1,K1,…,Kn)=1n∫Sn−1ϕ(d(K1,u)d(L1,u))d(L1,u)d(K2,u)⋯d(Kn,u)dS(u). | (8.2) |
When L1=K1, Bϕ(L1,K1,…,Kn) becomes the well-known mixed chord integral B(K1,…,Kn). Obviously, for 0≤i<n, Bϕ,i(K,L) is also a special case of Bϕ(L1,K1,…,Kn).
Corollary 8.3 If L1,K1,…,Kn∈Sn and ϕ1,ϕ2∈Φ, then
Bϕ2(L1,K1,…,Kn)=(ϕ1)′r(1)⋅ddε|ε=0B(L1+ϕε⋅K1,K2,…,Kn). | (8.3) |
Proof This yields immediately from (8.1) and (8.2).
Similar to the proof of Theorem 5.4, we may establish an Orlicz-Aleksandrov-Fenchel inequality as follows:
Theorem 8.4 (Orlicz-Aleksandrov-Fenchel inequality for the Orlicz multiple mixed chord integrals) If L1,K1,…,Kn∈Sn, ϕ∈Φ and 1≤r≤n, then
Bϕ(L1,K1,K2,⋯,Kn)≥B(L1,K2,⋯,Kn)⋅ϕ(r∏i=1B(Ki…,Ki,Kr+1,…,Kn)1rB(L1,K2…,Kn)). | (8.4) |
If ϕ is strictly convex, equality holds if and only if L1,K1,…,Kr are all of similar chord.
Proof This yields immediately by using a generalized idea and method of proving Theorem 5.4. Here, we omit the details.
Obviously, the Orlicz-Minklowski inequality (5.4) is a special case of the Orlicz-Aleksandrov-Fenchel inequality (8.4). Moreover, when L1=K1, (8.4) becomes the following Aleksandrov-Fenchel inequality for the mixed chords.
Corollary 8.5 (Aleksandrov-Fenchel inequality for the mixed chord integrals) If K1,…,Kn∈Sn and 1≤r≤n, then
B(K1,⋯,Kn)≤r∏i=1B(Ki…,Ki,Kr+1,…,Kn)1r. | (8.5) |
with equality if and only if K1,…,Kr are all of similar chord.
Finally, it is worth mentioning: when ϕ(t)=t−p and p≥1, Bϕ(L1,K1,…,Kn) written as Bp(L1,K1,…,Kn) and call it Lp-multiple mixed chord integrals of (n+1) star bodies L1,K1,…,Kn. So, the new concept of Lp-multiple mixed chord integrals and Lp-Aleksandrov-Fenchel inequality for the Lp-multiple mixed chord integrals may be also derived. Here, we omit the details of all derivations.
Research is supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (11371334, 10971205).
The author declares that no conflicts of interest in this paper.
[1] | FAO (2020) The State of Food and Agriculture (SOFA). Rome. Available from: http://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/cb1447en |
[2] |
Qutbudin I, Shiru MS, Sharafati A, et al. (2019) Seasonal drought pattern changes due to climate variability: Case study in Afghanistan. Water 11: 1096. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11051096 doi: 10.3390/w11051096
![]() |
[3] |
Zoljoodi M, Didevarasl A (2013) Evaluation of Spatial-Temporal Variability of Drought Events in Iran Using Palmer Drought Severity Index and Its Principal Factors (through 1951–2005). Atmos Clim Sci 3: 193–207. https://doi.org/10.4236/acs.2013.32021 doi: 10.4236/acs.2013.32021
![]() |
[4] |
Ta Z, Yu R, Chen X, et al. (2018) Analysis of the spatio-temporal patterns of dry and wet conditions in Central Asia. Atmosphere 9: 7. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos9010007 doi: 10.3390/atmos9010007
![]() |
[5] |
Li Z, Chen Y, Fang G, et al. (2017) Multivariate assessment and attribution of droughts in Central Asia. Sci Rep 7: 1316. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-01473-1 doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-01473-1
![]() |
[6] | Wheater H, Sorooshian S, Sharma KD (2007) Hydrological modelling in arid and semi-arid areas, Cambridge University Press. |
[7] | Singh A (2018) A Concise Review on Introduction to Hydrological Models. Glob Res Dev J Eng 3: 14–19. |
[8] |
Singh VP (2018) Hydrologic modeling: progress and future directions. Geosci Lett 5: 15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40562-018-0113-z doi: 10.1186/s40562-018-0113-z
![]() |
[9] |
Yu E, Liu X, Li J, et al. (2023) Calibration and Evaluation of the WRF-Hydro Model in Simulating the Streamflow over the Arid Regions of Northwest China: A Case Study in Kaidu River Basin. Sustainability 15: 6175. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15076175 doi: 10.3390/su15076175
![]() |
[10] | Gochis DJ, Barlage M, Dugger A, et al. (2018) WRF-Hydro Technical Description, (version 5.0). NCAR Tech Note, 107. Available from: https://ral.ucar.edu/sites/default/files/public/WRF-HydroV5TechnicalDescription_update512019.pdf |
[11] |
Lee J, Kim Y, Wang D (2022) Assessing the characteristics of recent drought events in South Korea using WRF-Hydro. J Hydrol 607: 127459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2022.127459 doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2022.127459
![]() |
[12] |
Quenum GMLD, Arnault J, Klutse NAB, et al. (2022) Potential of the Coupled WRF/WRF-Hydro Modeling System for Flood Forecasting in the Ouémé River (West Africa). Water 14: 1192. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14081192 doi: 10.3390/w14081192
![]() |
[13] |
Naabil E, Lamptey BL, Arnault J, et al. (2017) Water resources management using the WRF-Hydro modelling system: Case-study of the Tono dam in West Africa. J Hydrol Reg Stud 12: 196–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrh.2017.05.010 doi: 10.1016/j.ejrh.2017.05.010
![]() |
[14] |
Noor H, Vafakhah M, Taheriyoun M, et al. (2014) Hydrology modelling in Taleghan mountainous watershed using SWAT. J Water Land Dev 20: 11–18. https://doi.org/10.2478/jwld-2014-0003 doi: 10.2478/jwld-2014-0003
![]() |
[15] |
Kang K, Lee JH (2014) Hydrologic modelling of the effect of snowmelt and temperature on a mountainous watershed. J Earth Syst Sci 123: 705–713. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12040-014-0423-2 doi: 10.1007/s12040-014-0423-2
![]() |
[16] |
Hussainzada W, Lee HS (2021) Hydrological modelling for water resource management in a semi-arid mountainous region using the soil and water assessment tool: A case study in northern Afghanistan. Hydrology 8: 16. https://doi.org/10.3390/hydrology8010016 doi: 10.3390/hydrology8010016
![]() |
[17] |
Hussainzada W, Lee HS, Bahanga V, et al. (2021) Sensitivity of snowmelt runoff modelling to the level of cloud coverage in snow cover extent. J Hydrol Reg Stud 36: 100835. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrh.2021.100835 doi: 10.1016/j.ejrh.2021.100835
![]() |
[18] | MAIL (2023) Management Information System, Ministry of Agriculture, Irrigation and Livestock (MAIL), Management Information System (MIS), 2023. Available from: https://www.mail.gov.af/en. |
[19] |
Hussainzada W, Lee HS (2022) Effect of an improved agricultural irrigation scheme with a hydraulic structure for crop cultivation in arid northern Afghanistan using the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT). Sci Rep 12: 5186. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-09318-2 doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-09318-2
![]() |
[20] |
Hussainzada W, Cabrera JS, Samim AT, et al. (2023) Water resource management for improved crop cultivation and productivity with hydraulic engineering solution in arid northern Afghanistan. Appl Water Sci 13: 41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13201-022-01850-w doi: 10.1007/s13201-022-01850-w
![]() |
[21] |
Tani H, Tayfur G (2023) Modelling Rainfall-Runoff Process of Kabul River Basin in Afghanistan Using ArcSWAT Model. J Civ Eng Constr 12: 1–18. https://doi.org/10.32732/jcec.2023.12.1.1 doi: 10.32732/jcec.2023.12.1.1
![]() |
[22] |
Ougahi JH, Karim S, Mahmood SA (2022) Application of the SWAT model to assess climate and land use/cover change impacts on water balance components of the Kabul River Basin, Afghanistan. J Water Clim Change 13: 3977–3999. https://doi.org/10.2166/wcc.2022.261 doi: 10.2166/wcc.2022.261
![]() |
[23] | Ayoubi T, Dongshik K (2016) Panjshir Watershed Hydrologic Model Using Integrated Gis and ArcSWAT interface. J Earth Environ Sci 6: 145–161. |
[24] |
Aawar T, Khare D (2020) Assessment of climate change impacts on streamflow through hydrological model using SWAT model: a case study of Afghanistan. Model Earth Syst Environ 6: 1427–1437. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40808-020-00759-0 doi: 10.1007/s40808-020-00759-0
![]() |
[25] |
Akhtar F, Awan UK, Borgemeister C, et al. (2021) Coupling Remote Sensing and Hydrological Model for Evaluating the Impacts of Climate Change on Streamflow in Data-Scarce Environment. Sustainability 13: 14025. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132414025 doi: 10.3390/su132414025
![]() |
[26] |
John A, Fowler K, Nathan R, et al. (2021) Disaggregated monthly hydrological models can outperform daily models in providing daily flow statistics and extrapolate well to a drying climate. J Hydrol 598: 126471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2021.126471 doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2021.126471
![]() |
[27] |
Dechmi F, Burguete J, Skhiri A (2012) SWAT application in intensive irrigation systems: Model modification, calibration and validation. J Hydrol 470–471: 227–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.08.055 doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.08.055
![]() |
[28] |
Santhi C, Srinivasan R, Arnold JG, et al. (2006) A modeling approach to evaluate the impacts of water quality management plans implemented in a watershed in Texas. Environ Model Softw 21: 1141–1157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2005.05.013 doi: 10.1016/j.envsoft.2005.05.013
![]() |
[29] | NSIA (2023) Afghanistan Statistical Yearbook 2022–23, Kabul, Afghanistan. Available from: http://nsia.gov.af: 8080/wp-content/uploads/2023/. |
[30] |
Sherzad S, Chennappa TN (2022) Sustainability for the Watershed Management in Afghanistan: Example from Amu River Basin. Grassroots J Nat Resour 5: 44–58. https://doi.org/10.33002/nr2581.6853.050204 doi: 10.33002/nr2581.6853.050204
![]() |
[31] | Ran L, Pleim J, Gilliam R (2010) Impact of high resolution land-use data in meteorology and air quality modeling systems. Air Pollut Model Its Appl XX: 3–7. |
[32] | FAO/UNESCO, FAO/UNESCO Soil Map of the World, 1971. Available from: https://www.fao.org/soils-portal/data-hub/soil-maps-and-databases/faounesco-soil-map-of-the-world/en/. |
[33] |
Onogi K (1998) A data quality control method using forecasted horizontal gradient and tendency in a NWP system: Dynamic QC. J Meteorol Soc Japan 76: 497–516. https://doi.org/10.2151/jmsj1965.76.4_497 doi: 10.2151/jmsj1965.76.4_497
![]() |
[34] |
Gudmundsson L, Do HX, Leonard M, et al. (2018) The Global Streamflow Indices and Metadata Archive (GSIM)—Part 2: Quality control, time-series indices and homogeneity assessment. Earth Syst Sci Data 10: 787–804. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-10-787-2018 doi: 10.5194/essd-10-787-2018
![]() |
[35] |
Díaz Muñ iz C, García Nieto PJ, Alonso Fernández JR, et al. (2012) Detection of outliers in water quality monitoring samples using functional data analysis in San Esteban estuary (Northern Spain). Sci Total Environ 439: 54–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.08.083 doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.08.083
![]() |
[36] |
Liu S, Wang J, Wei J, et al. (2021) Hydrological simulation evaluation with WRF-Hydro in a large and highly complicated watershed: The Xijiang River basin. J Hydrol Reg Stud 38: 100943. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrh.2021.100943 doi: 10.1016/j.ejrh.2021.100943
![]() |
[37] |
Koren V, Schaake J, Mitchell K, et al. (1999) A parameterization of snowpack and frozen ground intended for NCEP weather and climate models. J Geophys Res Atmos 104: 19569–19585. https://doi.org/10.1029/1999JD900232 doi: 10.1029/1999JD900232
![]() |
[38] |
Niu GY, Yang ZL, Mitchell KE, et al. (2011) The community Noah land surface model with multiparameterization options (Noah-MP): 1. Model description and evaluation with local-scale measurements. J Geophys Res Atmos 116: 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1029/2010JD015139 doi: 10.1029/2010JD015139
![]() |
[39] | Gochis DJ, Barlage M, Cabell R, et al. (2020) The WRF-Hydro modeling system technical description, (Version 5.1.1). NCAR Tech Note 107. |
[40] | Sampson K, Gochis D (2018) WRF Hydro GIS Pre-Processing Tools, Version 5.0, Documentation. Boulder CO Natl Cent Atmos Res Res Appl Lab. |
[41] |
Shafqat Mehboob M, Kim Y, Lee J, et al. (2022) Quantifying the sources of uncertainty for hydrological predictions with WRF-Hydro over the snow-covered region in the Upper Indus Basin, Pakistan. J Hydrol 614: 128500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2022.128500 doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2022.128500
![]() |
[42] |
Liu Y, Liu J, Li C, et al. (2021) Parameter Sensitivity Analysis of the WRF-Hydro Modeling System for Streamflow Simulation: a Case Study in Semi-Humid and Semi-Arid Catchments of Northern China. Asia-Pacific J Atmos Sci 57: 451–466. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13143-020-00205-2 doi: 10.1007/s13143-020-00205-2
![]() |
[43] |
Mascaro G, Hussein A, Dugger A, et al. (2023) Process-based calibration of WRF-Hydro in a mountainous basin in southwestern U.S. J Am Water Resour Assoc 59: 49–70. https://doi.org/10.1111/1752-1688.13076 doi: 10.1111/1752-1688.13076
![]() |
[44] |
Kling H, Fuchs M, Paulin M (2012) Runoff conditions in the upper Danube basin under an ensemble of climate change scenarios. J Hydrol 424–425: 264–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.01.011 doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.01.011
![]() |
[45] |
You Y, Huang C, Yang Z, et al. (2020) Assessing Noah-MP Parameterization Sensitivity and Uncertainty Interval Across Snow Climates. J Geophys Res Atmos 125: 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JD030417 doi: 10.1029/2019JD030417
![]() |
[46] |
You Y, Huang C, Gu J, et al. (2020) Assessing snow simulation performance of typical combination schemes within Noah-MP in northern Xinjiang, China. J Hydrol 581: 124380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2019.124380 doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2019.124380
![]() |
[47] |
Moriasi DN, Gitau MW, Pai N, et al. (2015) Hydrologic and water quality models: Performance measures and evaluation criteria. Trans ASABE 58: 1763–1785. https://doi.org/10.13031/trans.58.10715 doi: 10.13031/trans.58.10715
![]() |
[48] |
Legates DR, McCabe GJ (1999) Evaluating the use of "goodness-of-fit" measures in hydrologic and hydroclimatic model validation. Water Resour Res 35: 233–241. https://doi.org/10.1029/1998WR900018 doi: 10.1029/1998WR900018
![]() |
[49] |
Legates DR, Davis RE (1997) The continuing search for an anthropogenic climate change signal: Limitations of correlation‐based approaches. Geophys Res Lett 24: 2319–2322. https://doi.org/10.1029/97GL02207 doi: 10.1029/97GL02207
![]() |
[50] |
Krause P, Boyle DP, Bäse F (2005) Comparison of different efficiency criteria for hydrological model assessment. Adv Geosci 5: 89–97. https://doi.org/10.5194/adgeo-5-89-2005 doi: 10.5194/adgeo-5-89-2005
![]() |
[51] |
Chen Z, Lucianetti G, Hartmann A (2023) Understanding groundwater storage and drainage dynamics of a high mountain catchment with complex geology using a semi-distributed process-based modelling approach. J Hydrol 625: 130067. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2023.130067 doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2023.130067
![]() |
1. | Zhen-Hang Yang, Feng Qi, Bivariate homogeneous functions of two parameters: monotonicity, convexity, comparisons, and functional inequalities, 2024, 0022247X, 129091, 10.1016/j.jmaa.2024.129091 |