remote sensing

Article
Evaluation of Satellite-Derived Precipitation Products for
Streamflow Simulation of a Mountainous Himalayan
Watershed: A Study of Myagdi Khola in Kali Gandaki
Basin, Nepal
Aashutosh Aryal 1, * , Thanh-Nhan-Duc Tran 1 , Brijesh Kumar 2 and Venkataraman Lakshmi 1

1 Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22904, USA;
syu3cs@virginia.edu (T.-N.-D.T.); vlakshmi@virginia.edu (V.L.)
2 Department of Agricultural Engineering, Bihar Agricultural University, Sabour, Bhagalpur 813210, Bihar,
India; brijeshag1684@gmail.com
* Correspondence: qeg4ne@virginia.edu

Abstract: This study assesses four Satellite-derived Precipitation Products (SPPs) that are corrected
and validated against gauge data such as Soil Moisture to Rain—Advanced SCATterometer V1.5
(SM2RAIN-ASCAT), Multi-Source Weighted-Ensemble Precipitation V2.8 (MSWEP), Global Precipi-
tation Measurement Integrated Multi-satellitE Retrievals for GPM Final run V6 (GPM IMERGF), and
Climate Hazards Group InfraRed Precipitation with Station (CHIRPS). We evaluate the performance
of these SPPs in Nepal’s Myagdi Khola watershed, located in the Kali Gandaki River basin, for the
period 2009–2019. The SPPs are evaluated by validating the gridded precipitation products using
the hydrological model, Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT). The results of this study show that
the SM2RAIN-ASCAT and GPM IMERGF performed better than MSWEP and CHIRPS in accurately
simulating daily and monthly streamflow. GPM IMERGF and SM2RAIN-ASCAT are found to be
the better-performing models, with higher NSE values (0.63 and 0.61, respectively) compared with
Citation: Aryal, A.; Tran, T.-N.-D.;
CHIRPS and MSWEP (0.45 and 0.41, respectively) after calibrating the model with monthly data.
Kumar, B.; Lakshmi, V. Evaluation of
Moreover, SM2RAIN-ASCAT demonstrated the best performance in simulating daily and monthly
Satellite-Derived Precipitation
streamflow, with NSE values of 0.57 and 0.63, respectively, after validation. This study’s findings
Products for Streamflow Simulation
of a Mountainous Himalayan
support the use of satellite-derived precipitation datasets as inputs for hydrological models to address
Watershed: A Study of Myagdi Khola the hydrological complexities of mountainous watersheds.
in Kali Gandaki Basin, Nepal. Remote
Sens. 2023, 15, 4762. https:// Keywords: GPM IMERGF; CHIRPS; SM2RAIN-ASCAT; MSWEP; mountainous Himalayan
doi.org/10.3390/rs15194762 watershed; SWAT

Academic Editors: Bahman Naser,

Hongwei Lu, Lei Wang and
Genxu Wang
1. Introduction
Received: 30 August 2023 Precipitation is an important component of the global terrestrial water cycle [1–6].
Revised: 19 September 2023
Precipitation data are essential for hydrological modeling [5,7,8], used in hydraulic stud-
Accepted: 26 September 2023
ies [9], environmental studies [10–12], and climate change investigations [5]. Obtaining
Published: 28 September 2023
accurate and reliable precipitation data in remote and rugged areas, such as mountainous
regions, is particularly challenging due to the high spatial and temporal variability of
data, the sparse and irregular distribution of rain gauge networks, the inadequate spatial
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
representation of in situ measurements, and the failure of climate stations due to natural
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. disasters [7,13,14]. Satellite products have gained popularity for estimating or measuring
This article is an open access article precipitation and simulating streamflow in recent decades [6,8,15–17]. They are not limited
distributed under the terms and by complex terrain and can provide consistent, wider spatial coverage and higher temporal
conditions of the Creative Commons resolution precipitation values compared with gauge-based datasets. Several studies have
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// demonstrated the benefits of satellite products in this regard, including those by [16,18–20].
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ The use of satellite-derived precipitation products (SPPs) is promising for supporting
4.0/). improved water resources management in Nepal, particularly the Himalayan region. The

Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 4762. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs15194762 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/remotesensing

Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 4762 2 of 20

Himalayas make up almost 85% of Nepal’s terrain, and the water reservoirs are the main
source of several rivers providing water to millions of people residing in the downstream
areas [14,21,22]. Due to Nepal’s complex geography, the summer monsoon system governs
most of the country’s precipitation [14,23,24]. The number of rain gauge-based stations in
most mountain areas, particularly in high-elevation areas of Nepal, is significantly lower
compared with low-elevation areas. This sporadic distribution poses difficulty in conduct-
ing hydro-meteorological studies, as noted by [25]. The lack of rain gauge observations
hinders the country’s ability to recognize precipitation patterns and conduct comprehensive
water management [26]. However, this issue can be solved by utilizing satellite-derived pre-
cipitation products. This approach is essential in the case of Nepal, where it can significantly
improve the country’s ability to manage water resources effectively.
There are two primary approaches commonly used to evaluate SPP performance: (1)
direct comparison of satellite-derived precipitation estimates with in situ precipitation data,
and (2) capability assessment of SPPs to simulate streamflow through hydrological models [7,
13]. Many researchers have used these approaches to assess various SPPs over different
climate regions [3,13,16,17,24,27–33]. The evaluation and validation of SPPs for a specific area
may not apply to others owing to the heterogeneity of the terrain, climate, soil, and land
cover [7]. Therefore, a separate evaluation is needed to test the reliability of selected SPPs over
any region.
Numerous regional studies have assessed the reliability of SPPs for hydrological
simulations [6,34]. Ref. [5] assessed the Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM)
and Climate Hazards Group InfraRed Precipitation with Station (CHIRPS) datasets in the
catchment of the Gurupura River in India. They simulated streamflow using the Soil and
Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) model and validated the results against the streamflow
simulations using rainfall data from the India Meteorological Department (IMD). Similarly,
ref. [16] conducted an assessment of eight gauge-corrected and uncorrected precipitation
products, including Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM) Integrated Multi-satellitE
Retrievals for GPM (GPM-IMERG), Precipitation Estimation from Remotely Sensed Infor-
mation using Artificial Neural Networks (PERSIANNs), Tropical Rainfall Measurement
Mission Multi-satellite Precipitation Analysis (TMPA), and Climate Hazards Group In-
fraRed Precipitation (CHIRP). They combined direct comparison methods with in situ
precipitation data and hydrological simulation to comprehensively assess the performance
of rainfall products using a hydrological model across six river basins, each representing
different climatic regions in Vietnam.
Ref. [6] thoroughly evaluated three SPPs for a sub-basin in the Mekong River Basin.
Additionally, several studies have been performed in Nepal using different SPPs. Ref. [14]
evaluated the spatial patterns in satellite-only and gauge-calibrated precipitation products
and compared them with 387-gauge measurements in Nepal. Ref. [17] assessed the aptness
of four SPPs, PERSIANNs, TMPA, CHIRPS, and Multi-Source Weighted-Ensemble Precipita-
tion (MSWEP), in capturing rainfall attributes across mountainous Himalayan watersheds.
The current literature on the use of SPPs in Nepal has focused on the comparison of
different SPPs for discharge simulations in Nepal and its river basins [13,15]. However,
due to the challenges associated with obtaining reliable and consistent climate data in the
Himalayan region, it is imperative that researchers evaluate various SPPs to assess the
performance of streamflow simulation in the Himalayan region of Nepal.
This study aims to evaluate four SPPs for predicting streamflow in the mountainous
watersheds of Nepal, where traditional gauge observations are difficult to obtain. This
study focuses on the Myagdi Khola watershed, a mountainous watershed that lacks climatic
data such as precipitation and temperature. The SPPs used in this study were selected
based on data availability, watershed characteristics, and resolution of data. The results of
this study fill knowledge gaps in the region and contribute to a better understanding of
Nepal’s mountain hydrology via the use of SPPs for streamflow simulation. Insight into
the best-performing SPPs will help inform improved water resource management practices
in the region by supporting additional hydrological modeling capabilities.
Remote Sens.
Remote Sens. 2023,
2023,15,
15,4762
x FOR PEER REVIEW 33 of 21
of 20

results
2. StudyofArea
this study fill knowledge gaps in the region and contribute to a better under-
standing of Nepal’s
The Kali Gandaki mountain hydrology
River originates viathe
from theNhubine
use of SPPs for Glacier
Himal streamflow simulation.
in the Mustang
Insight into the best-performing SPPs will help inform improved water resource manage-
region of Nepal, at an elevation of 6268 m above mean sea level (amsl). The Kali Gandaki
ment practices in the region by supporting additional hydrological modeling capabilities.
River flows south through a steep gorge known as the Kali Gandaki gorge between the
Dhaulagiri Mountain range (8167 m amsl to the west) and the Annapurna I Mountain range
2. Study
(8091 Areato the east). The Kali Gandaki Gorge is the deepest gorge in the world [35].
m amsl
MyagdiTheKhola
Kali Gandaki
is one of River
the mainoriginates
tributariesfrom ofthe
theNhubine
Kali GandakiHimal Glacier
River. It isin the Mustang
a river with its
region at
source of Mount
Nepal, at an elevation
Dhaulagiri, of 6268
which thenmpasses
above through
mean seathe level (amsl).
Myagdi The Kali
district Gandaki
to meet the
RiverGandaki
Kali flows south
River.through
The Myagdi a steep
Kholagorge known as
watershed wasthechosen
Kali Gandaki gorge
to represent between the
a mountainous
Dhaulagiri (Figure
watershed Mountain 1) asrange
this (8167 m amsl
watershed hastosignificant
the west) variability
and the Annapurna
in terms ofI Mountain
elevation,
ranging from
range (8091 m about
amsl to830 theto 8130The
east). m Kali
amslGandaki
(Figure Gorge
2). The is total area ofgorge
the deepest the watershed
in the world is
approximately 1100 square kilometers 2 ).
[35]. Myagdi Khola is one of the main(km tributaries of the Kali Gandaki River. It is a river
withThe majority
its source atofMount
the Myagdi Khola watershed
Dhaulagiri, which thenis passes
encompassed
through bythe
glaciers,
Myagdi snow, forests,
district to
and grasslands (Figure 2). In some hilly areas and along the
meet the Kali Gandaki River. The Myagdi Khola watershed was chosen to represent a river, the land is used for
agricultural
mountainouspurposes,
watershed as(Figure
indicated1) asbythis
cropland.
watershed Thehasland cover map
significant reveals in
variability a minimal
terms of
presence
elevation,ofranging
developedfrom(urban)
about 830 areas in the
to 8130 m study area, implying
amsl (Figure that area
2). The total the watershed
of the water- is
largely
shed is in its natural state,
approximately 1100except
square forkilometers
some agricultural
(km2). activities initiated by humans.

Figure 1.
Figure 1. Map
Map showing
showing the
the Myagdi
Myagdi Khola
Khola watershed
watershed (study
(study area)
area) with
with 55
55 delineated
delineated sub-basins.
sub-basins.
Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 4762
x FOR PEER REVIEW 44of
of 21
20

Figure 2. (A)
Figure 2. (A) Land
Land cover
cover map
map and
and (B)
(B) digital
digital elevation
elevation map
map of
of Myagdi
Myagdi Khola
Khola watershed.
watershed.

3. Materials and Methods

The majority of the Myagdi Khola watershed is encompassed by glaciers, snow, for-
3.1. Methodology
ests, and grasslands (Figure 2). In some hilly areas and along the river, the land is used for
agricultural
This studypurposes,
aims to asevaluate
indicatedthebyperformance
cropland. The ofland
SPPscover
in themap reveals aregion
Himalayan minimal
of
presence of developed (urban) areas in the study area, implying that
Nepal by comparing simulated and observed streamflow. The flowchart of the research the watershed is
largely in its natural state, except for some agricultural
methodology adopted in this study is shown in Figure 3. activities initiated by humans.
First, the Digital Elevation Model (DEM), land cover, soil, and climate data were
3. Materials
processed and
into Methodsformat for use as inputs to the hydrological model, SWAT. The
a suitable
domain
3.1. and inputs for the SWAT model were developed in the second step, and simulation
Methodology
runs This
werestudy
performed
aims tousing each the
evaluate SPPperformance
under consideration.
of SPPs in the Himalayan region of Ne-
The third step involved assessing the
pal by comparing simulated and observed streamflow. simulated results
The from each of
flowchart SPPthebefore the
research
model evaluation
methodology process.
adopted The
in this quantitative
study is shown assessment
in Figure 3. metrics NSE (Nash–Sutcliffe Ef-
ficiency), RMSE (Root Mean Square Error), PBIAS (Percent Bias), and R2 (Coefficient of
Determination) were used to evaluate the models’ performance. Similarly, time series and
scatter plots were used for the qualitative assessment.
In the fourth step, appropriate calibration parameters were identified based on pa-
rameters commonly used by other modelers for SWAT model calibration in similar regions
[35–41]. Next, the model was calibrated and validated using the SWAT-CUP tool. Lastly,
the model for each SPP was calibrated and validated using a similar approach to the
model evaluation.
Remote
RemoteSens. 2023,15,
Sens.2023, 15,4762
x FOR PEER REVIEW 55 of 20
21

Evaluation of 4 SPPs in simulating the streamflow of a mountain

watershed in Nepal

Data preparation and curation (i.e., DEM; Land Cover; Soil; Climate)

Model Set-up using SWAT

Model Evaluation for each SPPs with simulated versus observed streamflow
using qualitative (time series, and scatter plots) and quantitative (NSE, R2,
PBIAS and RMSE) assessments

Selection of Appropriate Calibration Parameters from Literature Review

Calibration and Validation in SWAT-CUP

Model Calibration/Validation Evaluation for each SPPs using similar

assessment approaches as applied in Model Evaluation step

Figure3.
Figure 3. Flowchart
Flowchart of
of the
the research
researchmethodology
methodologyadopted
adoptedin
inthis
thisstudy.
study.

3.2. InFirst,
Situ the
DataDigital Elevation Model (DEM), land cover, soil, and climate data were pro-
cessed This study
into used daily
a suitable format discharge data
for use as of one
inputs to hydrological
the hydrologicalgauging
model, station
SWAT. located at
The do-
the
mainoutlet/mouth
and inputs for of the
the Myagdi
SWAT model Khola,were
Nepal, from 1 January
developed 2009 tostep,
in the second 31 December 2019.
and simulation
The
runsstreamflow data were
were performed using obtained
each SPP from
underthe consideration.
Department of Hydrology and Meteorology
(DHM), a department under the Nepalese government
The third step involved assessing the simulated results responsible
from each for SPP
gathering
beforeand
the
disseminating official climate and hydrological data to the public.
model evaluation process. The quantitative assessment metrics NSE (Nash–Sutcliffe Effi-
ciency), RMSE (Root Mean Square Error), PBIAS (Percent Bias), and R2 (Coefficient of De-
3.3. Spatial Data
termination) for SWAT
were used to evaluate the models’ performance. Similarly, time series and
scatterIn this
plotsstudy,
were NASADEM
used for thewas chosen assessment.
qualitative as the DEM for SWAT input. This DEM dataset
has aIn spatial resolution of 30 ×
the fourth step, appropriate calibrationJPL,
30 m (NASA 2021; accessed
parameters on 5 November
were identified based on 2022)
pa-
(Figure 2). NASADEM is a modernized version of the DEM, generated
rameters commonly used by other modelers for SWAT model calibration in similar regions from Shuttle Radar
Topography
[35–41]. Next, Mission (SRTM)
the model was data, and hasand
calibrated beenvalidated
used in several studies
using the with SWAT
SWAT-CUP [8,42,43].
tool. Lastly,
The slope was estimated and the watershed boundary was delineated
the model for each SPP was calibrated and validated using a similar approach to the model using NASADEM
data (https://opentopography.org/, accessed on 5 November 2022). Land cover data at
evaluation.
a resolution of 30 × 30 m were obtained from the RDS (Regional Database System) of
the
3.2. International
In Situ Data Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD) (http://rds.
icimod.org/Home/DataDetail?metadataId=1972729; (FRTC/ICIMOD, 2022) accessed on
This study used daily discharge data of one hydrological gauging station located at
5 November 2022). The NLCMS (National Land Cover Monitoring System) has mapped
the outlet/mouth of the Myagdi Khola, Nepal, from 1 January 2009 to 31 December 2019.
Nepal’s annual land cover from 2000 to 2019. Using a standardized classification method,
The streamflow data were obtained from the Department of Hydrology and Meteorology
NLCMS uses remote-sensed Landsat images and applies machine learning techniques
(DHM), a department under the Nepalese government responsible for gathering and dis-
in the GEE (Google Earth Engine) environment to generate land cover maps annually
seminating official climate and hydrological data to the public.
(FRTC/ICIMOD, 2022). The NLCMS was devised by the FRTC (Forest Research and
Training Centre), Ministry of Forests and Environment, Government of Nepal, with support
3.3. Spatial Data for SWAT
from the ICIMOD. The land cover data were divided into eleven classes, as shown in
FigureIn2.thisThestudy, NASADEM
30 m spatial was chosen
resolution as thetoDEM
data related for SWAT input.
soil information, which This
wereDEM dataset
resampled
has athe
from spatial resolution
original of 30 × 30 of
spatial resolution m30(NASA
arc-s (~1JPL,km),
2021; accessed
were on from
retrieved 5 November
the Food2022)
and
(Figure 2). NASADEM
Agriculture Organization is aofmodernized version (FAO)
the United Nations of the DEM, generated
database from ShuttleWorld
called Harmonized Radar
Topography
Soil Database Mission
(FAO, 2009)(SRTM) data, and has beenaccessed
(https://www.fao.org/; used inonseveral studies2022).
5 November withTable
SWAT 1
[8,42,43]. The slope was estimated and the watershed boundary
describes spatial data used as input in the SWAT model setup. The threshold limit to was delineated using
NASADEM data (https://opentopography.org/, accessed on 5 November 2022). Land
Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 4762 6 of 20

delineate 55 sub-basins (Figure 1) was 10 km2 . The selection of a threshold limit to delineate
55 sub-basins was based on the criterion of achieving an optimal number of sub-basins for
the watershed and their centroid points. This approach effectively displayed the spatial
distribution of the watershed under study. This choice was also made to facilitate the use
of climate data uniformly represented spatially and temporally as input for the model.

Table 1. Description of spatial data used in the SWAT model setup.

Spatial Data Spatial Resolution Temporal Coverage Data Source References

Elevation map 30 m 2000 NASADEM [44]
Land use map 30 m 2000–2019 ICIMOD [45]
30 arc-seconds; FAO Harmonized
Soil map N/A [46]
resampled to 30 m World Soil Database

3.4. Satellite-Derived Precipitation Products

Table 2 shows the description of selected SPPs used in this study. Given the relatively
small size of the study area (watershed), the SPPs were configured to have a finer spatial
and temporal resolution to enhance the efficiency of the analysis and the accuracy of the
expected results [6,16,18,19].

Table 2. Description of the selected SPPs.

Spatial Temporal Temporal

SPPs Spatial Coverage References
Resolution Coverage Resolution
GPM IMERGF-V6B 0.1◦ 60◦ N–60◦ S 2000–2021 Daily [47]
MSWEP V2.8 0.1◦ 60◦ N–60◦ S 1979–2020 Daily [48]
SM2RAIN–ASCAT V1.5 0.125◦ 60◦ N–60◦ S 2007–2021 Daily [49]
CHIRPS V2.0 0.05◦ 50◦ N–50◦ S 1981–near present Daily [50]

3.4.1. GPM IMERGF

GPM IMERG Final run (GPM IMERGF) is a satellite-derived rainfall product that
utilizes a set of instructions for estimation and seeks to internally incorporate, interpolate,
and calibrate various microwave precipitation estimations [47,51]. GPM IMERGF utilizes
analyses from precipitation gaging stations, estimates from calibrated infrared satellites, and
other estimators. The IMERGF precipitation data has a 0.1◦ spatial resolution, is available
for areas covering latitudes ranging from 60◦ S to 60◦ N, and has a short time interval of
about 30 min compared with the TMPA product [47]. This study used the IMERG Final
run rather than the Early or Late runs, as many fine-tuning and validation approaches
have been considered to generate this dataset. The daily gridded GPM IMERGF dataset
was downloaded from the Giovanni website (https://giovanni.gsfc.nasa.gov/giovanni/,
accessed on 8 November 2022).

3.4.2. MSWEP
MSWEP is a recently launched global precipitation product with 0.1◦ spatial resolution
and a temporal resolution of 3 h available from 1979 to near real time [48,52]. The MSWEP
uniquely combines rain gauge data, satellite data from Global Satellite Mapping and Precipi-
tation Moving Vector with the Kalman filter (GSMaP-MVK), the CPC MORPHing technique
(CMORPH), and TMPA 3B42RT, and data from the Japanese 55-year Reanalysis (JRA-55)
and European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts Re-Analysis (ERA)-Interim to
obtain the highest quality precipitation estimates at every location. The Climate Hazards
Precipitation Climatology (CHPClim) dataset was used to obtain MSWEP (V1.0) data using
long-term average values but was replaced with more precise regional datasets [48,52]. The
Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 4762 7 of 20

adjustment for under-catch of gauge and rain shadow effects was first proposed by [3] using
average catchment rainfall and streamflow measurements at 13,762 sites globally. Since then,
notable changes have been made to MSWEP (V2.8), such as improved finer spatial resolution,
corrected frequency for precipitation, different cumulative distribution functions applied, and
the use of a satellite-derived thermal infrared imaging estimator to obtain the precipitation
estimates. This study obtained the daily gridded MSWEP dataset downloaded from the
GloH2 O website (http://www.gloh2o.org/mswep/ (accessed on 9 November 2022)).

3.4.3. SM2RAIN-ASCAT
Soil Moisture to Rain—Advanced SCATterometer V1.5 (SM2RAIN-ASCAT) is a newer
satellite-derived global precipitation product incorporating soil moisture conditions collected
by the operational satellite MetOp from the European Meteorological Satellite (EUMETSAT)
Organization (Darmstadt, Germany). This product utilizes an advanced algorithm called
SM2RAIN using a bottom-up approach to obtain precipitation estimates using soil moisture
data [49,53–55]. It was generated using the soil WAter Retrieval Package (WARP) algorithm
and ASCAT soil moisture data obtained from MetOp-A and MetOp-B satellites [54]. The
0.125◦ spatial resolution SM2RAIN–ASCAT daily gridded data were extracted from the link
https://zenodo.org/record/6136294 (accessed on 10 November 2022).

3.4.4. CHIRPS
CHIRPS is a quasi-global precipitation dataset, with spatial coverage from 50◦ S to
50◦ N and temporal coverage from 1981 to the present. The 0.05◦ spatial resolution dataset
is calibrated and validated using data from rainfall gauges to create gridded precipitation
data (Funk et al., 2015). CHIRPS integrates several data sources, including the CHPClim,
the TRMM 3B42 from NASA, atmospheric rainfall models from NOAA, Thermal Infrared
(TIR) satellite observations, and ground rainfall measurements from various meteorological
offices around the globe [50]. This U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) dataset, generated
in collaboration with the Climate Hazards Group at the University of California, Santa
Barbara, is organized in a grid format. It can be accessed using the link https://data.chc.
ucsb.edu/products/CHIRPS-2.0/ (accessed on 12 November 2022).

3.4.5. SWAT Model

SWAT is a semi-distributed physical hydrological model that can incorporate climate
data of daily, monthly, and annual time steps to predict streamflow, study sediment move-
ment, and assess water quality of watersheds of any given scale and complexity [56]. The
model was developed by the Agriculture Research Service (ARS) and the U.S. Department
of Agriculture (USDA) [57]. SWAT’s small spatial unit is known as the Hydrologic Re-
sponse Unit (HRU). For estimating streamflow, it is anticipated that runoff will be predicted
separately for each Hydrological Response Unit (HRU) with detailed explanation provided
by [58]. In recent years, the SWAT tool has become popular in modeling the river basins of
the United States, Europe, and other regions [36,37,59] as the model has the capability to
handle complex hydrological problems [60]. Other efforts have been made that employed
the SWAT model regarding the effects of land use [4,61], climate change impacts [6,43,62],
validating DEM products [63], or determining the robustness of SPPs [16,42].
A daily timestep was chosen for the model run with two years (2007–2008) as a period
for warm-up over the selected simulation period of 11 years (2009–2019). The calibration
period was set between 2009 and 2014 (6 years). The validation period was established
between 2015 and 2019 (5 years). Based on the literature review findings on the parameters
often used by other modelers to calibrate their SWAT models in similar regions, twenty-nine
parameters were selected for calibration and validation as shown in the Supplementary
Materials, Table S1, including their short name, methods applied, full name, and their
normal range in this study [35–41]. The number of SWAT parameters for calibration was
kept the same for all SPPs to ensure consistency when evaluating the modeled data. The
Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 4762 8 of 20

calibration was first run using the range of values in the Supplementary Materials, Table S1
(the SWAT-CUP tool defines the maximum and minimum values for the listed parameters).
After the first calibration run, the newly fitted range for each parameter was used
for the final calibration run. The fitted range from the last calibration run was used for
validation. The streamflow observed from 2009 to 2019 at the Myagdi Khola station was
obtained and used for calibration and validation. The observed streamflow data had
several gaps from 2000 to 2008; therefore, the 2009–2019 period was selected for this study.
The calibration run was from 2009 to 2014 (6 years), and the validation run was from
2015 to 2019 (5 years). In this study, the calibration and validation were performed using
the Sequential Uncertainty Fitting version 2 (SUFI-2) technique and an objective function
Nash-Sutcliffe Efficiency (NSE) via SWAT-CUP software (V5.2.1) mentioned by [64,65]. The
calibrated parameters used in this study can be found in the Supplementary Materials,
Table S1.

3.5. Evaluation Metrics

Table 3 shows the equation and optimal value of the model performance metrics
used. The performance of the model, driven by the selected Satellite-derived Precipitation
Products (SPPs) for accurate streamflow prediction, was assessed using NSE, PBIAS, RMSE,
and R2 [12,66,67]. The R2 values indicate the correlation strength between observed and
simulated streamflow values. NSE reflects how well the simulation aligns with the obser-
vations. RMSE values indicate the absolute errors of the SPPs. PBIAS assesses the extent to
which the simulated streamflow overestimates or underestimates the observations at the
gauging station. Specifically, a positive PBIAS value indicates an overestimation relative to
the gauging observations, while a negative PBIAS value indicates an underestimation [17].

Table 3. Performance metrics to evaluate hydrological models.

Model Performance
Equation Optimal Value
Evaluation Metrics
s
n
1 RMSE 1

2 0
n ∑ Qobs,i − Qsim,i
i=1
n
2 NSE ∑i=1 (Qobs,i −Qsim,i ) 1
1− n 2
∑i=1 (Qobs,i −Qobs )
n
3 PBIAS ∑i=1 (Qobs,i −Qsim,i ) 0
n
∑i=1 Qobs,i
∗ 100
n 2
4 R2 ∑i=1 (Qobs,i −Qsim,i ) 1
1− n 2
∑i=1 (Qobs,i −Qobs )
Note: n represents the total amount of data used for evaluation; Qsim,i is the simulated while Qobs,i is the observed
streamflow (m3 /s) for the ith day. Qobs is the average observed streamflow (m3 /s).

The Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) is a popularly used metric to quantify the
variations between values predicted by a model and the actual values observed in the
modeled environment. RMSE aggregates these individual differences, also referred to as
residuals, into a single measure of the model’s predictive capability. It essentially quantifies
the discrepancy between two datasets, thus comparing the predicted values with the known
or observed values.
The Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE) is a normalized metric that measures the difference
between the variance in residuals (variance in the model residuals or errors) and the
variance in the observed data [68]. It assesses how closely observed vs. simulated data
align with the identity (1:1) line. An NSE of 1 denotes a perfect fit between the modeled
and the observed data. An NSE between negative infinity and 0 suggests the mean of the
observed data is a worthier predictor than the modeled one, while an NSE of 0 indicates
that the model’s predictions are as accurate as the mean of the observed data.
Percent bias (PBIAS) measures the bias of the simulated values to be bigger or smaller
than their observed counterparts. Low magnitudes of PBIAS indicate a more accurate
model simulation, with 0.0 being the optimal value. Negative values of PBIAS signify
Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 4762 9 of 20

a bias toward model underestimation, whereas positive values indicate a bias toward
model overestimation.
The coefficient of determination (R2 ) is a value between 0 and 1 that quantifies how
well a statistical model predicts an outcome, with the dependent variable in the model
representing the outcome. R2 can range from as low as 0 to as high as 1. The closer to 1,
the more accurate it is. R2 is a more refined measure of the goodness of fit of a model. It
represents the proportion of the variance in the dependent variable that is explained by
the model.

4. Results
4.1. Qualitative Assessment
4.1.1. Model Evaluation Results
Figures 4 and 5 show the time series plot of daily and monthly mean simulated versus
observed streamflow before calibration. The daily simulated streamflow is challenging to
interpret against observed data due to the high noise in the streamflow values, leading
to many attenuation peaks that impede qualitative assessments and make it harder to
identify any discernible patterns or trends. On the other hand, the monthly simulated
versus observed streamflow time series is more straightforward to interpret than its daily
counterpart. The monthly time series provides a broader and more generalized view of
Remote Sens. 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW
the water flow patterns over a more extended period. The figures below represent 10 ofan
21

assessment of the quality of model simulation runs for each SPP. Although the simulation
failed to capture the flood peak in all SPPs considered for the study, the SM2RAIN-ASCAT
and GPM-IMERGF
GPM-IMERGF products
products couldcould simulate
simulate higher
higher monthly
monthly streamflow
streamflow thanthan the MSWEP
the MSWEP and
and CHIRPS products. The simulated flood volume is lower than the observed
CHIRPS products. The simulated flood volume is lower than the observed flood volume flood
volume in allleading
in all SPPs, SPPs, leading
to the to the assumption
assumption thatmodel
that the the model failed
failed to predict
to predict thethe streamflow
streamflow of
of
thethe watershed
watershed from
from the
the model
model accurately.
accurately.

Figure4.4. The
Figure Thecomparison
comparisonof
ofdaily
dailysimulated
simulatedvs.
vs.observed
observedstreamflow
streamflowfor
for44SPPs
SPPsbefore
beforecalibration.
calibration.
RemoteSens.
Remote Sens.2023,
2023,15,
15,4762
x FOR PEER REVIEW 11
10 of 20
21

Figure 5.
Figure 5. The
The comparison
comparison of
of monthly
monthly simulated
simulatedvs.
vs.observed
observedstreamflow
streamflowfor
for44SPPs
SPPsbefore
beforecalibration.
calibration.

Similarly, the
Similarly, the simulated
simulated low low flows
flows areare comparable
comparable and and areare somewhat
somewhat closercloser toto the
the
observed data for each
observed each SPP,
SPP, in
in contrast
contrast to to the
the notable
notable difference
difference observed
observed in in the
the case
case of of
simulating
simulatingpeak peakflows.
flows.SM2RAIN-ASCAT
SM2RAIN-ASCATcan can simulate
simulate thethe
lowlow flows
flowsmuchmuchbetter thanthan
better the
other products,
the other as the
products, as simulated
the simulatedflows are close
flows to the
are close toobserved
the observed flows.flows.
Furthermore,
Furthermore,the themodels
modelsare arecapable
capableofof capturing
capturing thethe
seasonality
seasonality of the flows.
of the It can
flows. be
It can
inferred that the SPPs considered in this study can simulate the seasonality
be inferred that the SPPs considered in this study can simulate the seasonality of streamflow of streamflow
of
of the
the watershed
watershed but butfailed
failedtotosimulate
simulateflood floodpeakpeak and
and volume,
volume, which
which maymay indicate
indicate thatthat
the
the hydrological
hydrological model
model has inadequately
has inadequately simulated
simulated somesome key hydrological
key hydrological components.
components. These
These
findingsfindings were before
were noted noted the
before the calibration
calibration process process
was carriedwasout carried
on the out on the models.
models.
Figures
Figures 66 andand 77 depict
depict the
the scatter
scatter plots
plots that
that compare
compare dailydaily andand monthly
monthly simulated
simulated
versus
versus observed streamflow for the four SPPs before the calibration process. The
observed streamflow for the four SPPs before the calibration process. The poor
poor
correlation between the simulated and observed data in the figures
correlation between the simulated and observed data in the figures is primarily attributed is primarily attributed
to
to the
the inability
inability ofof the
the models
models to simulate flood
to simulate flood volume
volume and and capture
capture peakpeak flows
flows accurately.
accurately.
Additionally, the plots highlight notable differences in simulated
Additionally, the plots highlight notable differences in simulated and observed stream- and observed streamflow
for
flowallfor
fourallSPPs. However,
four SPPs. SM2RAIN-ASCAT
However, SM2RAIN-ASCAT showsshows
a relatively betterbetter
a relatively correlation with
correlation
an R2 value of 0.53 in daily flows compared with other products. Although the value of
with an R value of 0.53 in daily flows compared with other products. Although the value
2
0.53 is lower
of 0.53 thanthan
is lower the the
optimal value
optimal of 1,of
value it 1,
demonstrates
it demonstrates a relatively betterbetter
a relatively correlation than
correlation
other products. An interesting observation is that MSWEP exhibits
than other products. An interesting observation 2is that MSWEP exhibits a better correla- a better correlation
coefficient
tion coefficient valuevalue
of 0.36 thanthan
of 0.36 GPM-IMERGF
GPM-IMERGF (R (R =2 0.27).
= 0.27).Referring
Referringto toFigure
Figure 5, 5, GPM-
GPM-
IMERGF
IMERGF produces better-simulated results, with better-predicted flow peaks than those
produces better-simulated results, with better-predicted flow peaks than those
from the MSWEP product. However, the scatter plot shows that MSWEP exhibits more
from the MSWEP product. However, the scatter plot shows that MSWEP exhibits more
consistent and comparable simulated values than GPM-IMERGF. Meanwhile, CHIRPS
consistent and comparable simulated values than GPM-IMERGF. Meanwhile, CHIRPS
demonstrates a very low correlation coefficient value (R22 = 0.14) between simulated and
demonstrates a very low correlation coefficient value (R = 0.14) between simulated and
observed streamflow.
observed streamflow.
Remote Sens.Sens.
Remote 2023, 15,15,
2023, 4762
x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 21 11 of 20
Remote Sens. 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 21

Figure 6. Daily simulated

Dailysimulated
simulated vs. observed streamflow scatter plot before calibration for 4 SPPs with a with a
Figure
Figure 6. Daily vs.vs. observed
observed streamflow
streamflow scatterscatter plot before
plot before calibration
calibration for
for 4 SPPs 4 SPPs
with a
trend line
trend line showing
showingRR2Rvalues
2 values and a 1:1 linear line (dashed line) drawn as a reference line.
2 values and a 1:1 linear line (dashed line) drawn as a reference line.
trend line showing and a 1:1 linear line (dashed line) drawn as a reference line.

Figure 7. Monthly simulated vs. observed streamflow scatter plot before calibration for 4 SPPs with
Figure 7. Monthly
Monthlysimulated vs.vs.
observed streamflow scatter plot before calibration for 4 SPPs with
Figure
a trend 7.
line showingsimulated
R2 values and observed
a 1:1 linearstreamflow
line (dashedscatter plot before
line) drawn calibration
as a reference line. for 4 SPPs with a
a trend line showing R22 values and a 1:1 linear line (dashed line) drawn as a reference line.
trend line showing R values and a 1:1 linear line (dashed line) drawn as a reference line.

The correlation coefficient values are higher for monthly flows compared with daily
flows. The values increased for all SPPs. Monthly data are aggregated and averaged over
the daily data, resulting in significantly lesser variability in daily flows while aggregating
into monthly flows, as observed in Figure 7. MSWEP showed the highest correlation
Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 4762 12 of 20

coefficient
Remote Sens. 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW value of 0.76, followed by SM2RAIN-ASCAT, with a correlation value 13 0.75.
of 21
GPM-IMERGF and CHIRPS correlation coefficient values significantly increased to 0.69
and 0.66, respectively.
Furthermore,
The correlationwhile aggregating
coefficient valuesthe
aredaily flows
higher into monthly
for monthly flowsflows, the uncertainty
compared with daily
associated
flows. The values increased for all SPPs. Monthly data are aggregated and increase
with daily flows significantly decreases, resulting in a significant averagedinover
the
correlation coefficient values. Aggregating the data produced better results and facilitated
the daily data, resulting in significantly lesser variability in daily flows while aggregating
the
intointerpretation
monthly flows, of findings in this
as observed study. 7. MSWEP showed the highest correlation co-
in Figure
efficient
4.1.2. value of 0.76,
Streamflow followed by SM2RAIN-ASCAT, with a correlation value 0.75. GPM-
Evaluation
IMERGF and CHIRPS correlation coefficient values significantly increased to 0.69 and
This study re-evaluated the model performance by examining the peak flow, low flows,
0.66, respectively.
time of peak flow, seasonal trend, and flood volume using newly calibrated and validated
Furthermore, while aggregating the daily flows into monthly flows, the uncertainty
simulated and observed streamflow data. Time series plots of daily and monthly mean
associated with daily flows significantly decreases, resulting in a significant increase in
simulated vs. observed streamflow were generated after the calibration and validation
the correlation coefficient values. Aggregating the data produced better results and facili-
processes, as shown in Figures 8 and 9. The calibration process, which involved considering
tated the interpretation of findings in this study.
all the essential calibration parameters for a mountainous watershed, calibrating the models
with 1000 simulation runs, and narrowing the range of fitted values of the calibrated
4.1.2. Streamflow Evaluation
parameters, led to a slight improvement in the model’s performance of all SPPs.
This study
While re-evaluated
the peak simulated the model
flows performance
slightly by examining
increased, they the peak
underestimated the flow, low
observed
flows, time of
streamflow. peak flow,
However, the seasonal
daily datatrend,
showedand less
flood volume using
attenuation newly
of peaks calibrated
when compared and
validated
with simulated
the plots beforeand observedasstreamflow
calibration, observed in data. Time
Figure 8. series plots of daily and monthly
The SM2RAIN-ASCAT product
mean simulated
exhibited improved vs. observed
performancestreamflow were generated
in simulating peak flows after
andthe calibration
flood volume,and valida-
while the
GPM IMERGF product showed improvements in the calibration period but did not con-
tion processes, as shown in Figures 8 and 9. The calibration process, which involved fare
sidering
better all the
in the essentialperiod,
validation calibration
as seenparameters
in Figure for a mountainous
9. The MSWEP andwatershed, calibrating
CHIRPS models also
the modelstheir
improved with 1000 simulation
performance but didruns,
not and
fare narrowing
well compared the range of fitted
with the values of the
SM2RAIN-ASCAT
calibrated
and parameters,
GPM-IMERGF led to a slight improvement in the model’s performance of all SPPs.
models.

Figure 8.
Figure 8. The comparison
comparison of
of daily
daily simulated
simulated versus
versus observed
observed streamflow
streamflow for
for 44 SPPs
SPPs after
after calibration
calibration
and validation.
and validation.
Remote Sens.
Remote Sens. 2023,
2023, 15,
15, 4762
x FOR PEER REVIEW 14
13 of 21
of 20

Figure 9.
9. The
The comparison
comparisonof
ofmonthly
monthlysimulated
simulatedversus
versusobserved
observed streamflow
streamflow forfor 4 SPPs
4 SPPs after
after cali-
calibra-
bration and validation.
tion and validation.

While the peakthe

Furthermore, simulated
seasonalflows
trendslightly increased,
is closely relatedthey
to theunderestimated
observed trend, theas
observed
seen in
Figure 9, which
streamflow. indicates
However, the that
dailythe data hydrological
showed lessdynamics
attenuation areof
accurate but not
peaks when precise
compared
enough
with thefor a mountainous
plots watershed
before calibration, in Nepal.
as observed All models
in Figure 8. The simulated the time product
SM2RAIN-ASCAT to peak
flow whenimproved
exhibited comparedperformance
against observed data, indicating
in simulating that the
peak flows streamflow
and seasonality
flood volume, whilewas
the
simulated
GPM IMERGF accurately.
productLastly, it canimprovements
showed be deduced that in the calibration
calibration process helped
period but didimprove
not fare
the model
better in theperformance by improving
validation period, as seen the simulations
in Figure 9. The to captureand
MSWEP higher
CHIRPSfloodmodels
peaks and
also
increase the flood volume of the watershed.
improved their performance but did not fare well compared with the SM2RAIN-ASCAT
and GPM-IMERGF models.
4.2. Quantitative
Furthermore, Assessment
the seasonal trend is closely related to the observed trend, as seen in
FigureTables 4 andindicates
9, which 5 presentthatthe model performance
the hydrological metrics are
dynamics in model evaluation
accurate but not (before
precise
calibration), calibration, and validation stages for evaluating simulated
enough for a mountainous watershed in Nepal. All models simulated the time to peak daily and monthly
streamflow from four SPPs. The performance evaluation that
metrics, 2 and NSE,
especially Rseasonality
flow when compared against observed data, indicating the streamflow
showed a significant
was simulated increase
accurately. after calibration,
Lastly, which adds
it can be deduced that confidence to theprocess
the calibration modeled data.
helped
GPM IMERGF performed better in the calibration process, whereas
improve the model performance by improving the simulations to capture higher flood SM2RAIN-ASCAT
performed better inthe
peaks and increase theflood
validation
volume process,
of the as indicated in the tables below. MSWEP and
watershed.
CHIRPS did not perform well in the calibration and validation periods.
After calibration
4.2. Quantitative of daily data, GPM IMERGF and SM2RAIN-ASCAT were found to
Assessment
be the better-performing models, with higher NSE values (0.48 and 0.46, respectively) com-
Tables 4 and 5 present the model performance metrics in model evaluation (before
pared with CHIRPS and MSWEP (NSE values of 0.34 and 0.32, respectively). In addition,
calibration),
2 calibration, and validation stages for evaluating simulated daily and monthly
R values increased for all models after calibration, indicating improved performance with
streamflow from four SPPs. The performance evaluation metrics, especially R2 and NSE,
increased correlation between simulated and observed daily streamflow data.
showed a significant increase after calibration, which adds confidence to the modeled
After calibration of monthly data, the model runs using GPM IMERGF and SM2RAIN-
data. GPM IMERGF performed better in the calibration process, whereas SM2RAIN-
ASCAT were found to be the better-performing models, with higher NSE values (0.63 and
ASCAT
0.61, performedcompared
respectively) better in withthe validation
CHIRPS and process,
MSWEP as (0.45
indicated in the
and 0.41, tables below.
respectively). In
MSWEP and
2 CHIRPS did not perform well in the calibration
addition, R values increased for all models except for MSWEP after calibration,and validation periods.
indicat-
ing improved performance with increased correlation between simulated and observed
monthly streamflow data.
Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 4762 14 of 20

Table 4. Model performance metrics before and after calibration for evaluating simulated daily and
monthly streamflow from 4 SPPs.

Before Calibration After Calibration

Product R2 NSE RMSE PBIAS R2 NSE RMSE PBIAS
Daily
MSWEP 0.36 0.07 96.9 63.2 0.50 0.32 77.6 50.4
SM2RAIN-ASCAT 0.53 0.38 79.5 42.3 0.59 0.46 69.0 39.7
CHIRPS 0.14 −0.25 112.3 62.5 0.60 0.34 76.3 53.7
GPM-IMERGF 0.27 0.04 98.5 55.5 0.61 0.48 67.5 41.1
Monthly
MSWEP 0.76 0.14 83.6 63.1 0.69 0.41 61.8 50.5
SM2RAIN-ASCAT 0.75 0.49 64.7 42.4 0.79 0.61 50.4 39.8
CHIRPS 0.66 0.16 82.7 62.5 0.83 0.45 59.6 53.8
GPM-IMERGF 0.69 0.31 74.9 55.5 0.82 0.63 48.7 41.2

Table 5. Model performance metrics after validation for evaluating simulated daily and monthly
streamflow from 4 SPPs.

Validation
Product R2 NSE RMSE PBIAS R2 NSE RMSE PBIAS
Daily Monthly
MSWEP 0.64 0.27 92.3 61.4 0.78 0.30 84.6 61.5
SM2RAIN-ASCAT 0.74 0.57 70.5 36.0 0.83 0.63 61.5 36.1
CHIRPS 0.64 0.22 95.8 62.9 0.76 0.24 88.1 63.0
GPM-IMERGF 0.66 0.29 91.4 60.9 0.81 0.33 82.9 61.0

SM2RAIN-ASCAT demonstrated the best performance in simulating daily and monthly

streamflow in the validation period, with NSE values of 0.57 and 0.63, respectively, as indi-
cated in Table 5. The GPM IMERGF model, on the other hand, displayed poor performance
during the validation stage, in contrast to the calibration stage, with NSE values of only
0.29 and 0.33 for daily and monthly data, respectively. Notably, R2 values were higher for
all models during validation, indicating an increased correlation between simulated and
observed daily and monthly streamflow data.
Other performance metrics, such as RMSE and PBIAS, could not provide definitive
evidence and support for model performance evaluations in any given scenario and period.
Thus, the quantitative assessment for the model performance evaluation using RMSE
and PBIAS values was inconclusive. However, NSE and R2 metrics proved adequate for
evaluating model performance and drawing reasonable conclusions for this study.

5. Discussion
Nepal’s mountain hydrology is complex due to the heterogeneous topography. The
various hydrological processes, such as precipitation, snow, and groundwater, are inextri-
cably linked to the topography [69]. Nepal also experiences diverse climatic conditions
owing to the heterogeneity in the country’s topography. The country’s diverse climatic
conditions can be attributed to the heterogeneity in topography, with low-lying plains
or areas having tropical and sub-tropical climates and high-elevation regions such as the
Himalayas having tundra and polar frost climates [69,70]. Summer monsoons and west-
erlies are Nepal’s two dominant weather systems [70]. Most of the annual precipitation
in Nepal falls during the monsoon period (June–September), and the rest falls during the
pre-monsoon (March–May), post-monsoon (October–November), and winter (December–
February) periods [14,70]. Due to the topographical differences, Nepal’s mountainous
regions receive less rainfall than other regions. However, these areas possess ample snow-
Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 4762 15 of 20

packs, glaciers, and ice that are crucial in driving and regulating the hydrological processes.
To understand the hydrological patterns in Nepal’s mountainous terrain, it is essential to
grasp the intricate interactions among different hydrological processes and the utilization
of SPPs in hydrological modeling applications.
The variation in the SPPs themselves also presents limitations to the study. Each
satellite product considered in this study varies in terms of its inherent characteristics
for processing the estimates. The SPPs have different spatial and temporal resolutions.
Differences in capturing the rainfall data in each product and how the estimates are
calibrated and validated using ground observations also make a difference in simulating
results and performing a model evaluation. Furthermore, due to complex topography,
the high variability of precipitation patterns observed in both temporal and spatial scales
within the watershed could affect the rainfall estimates from these products.
In this study, the SM2RAIN-ASCAT product performed better in predicting streamflow
in the Myagdi Khola watershed. This can be attributed to the satellite’s rainfall retrieval
algorithm incorporating a soil moisture dataset to detect rainfall events [55]. Since forests,
snow, and glaciers largely cover the watershed, soil must be saturated to predict better
surface runoff estimates. When the soil is saturated in the watershed, there is less infiltration,
and most of the rainfall becomes surface runoff, ultimately reflecting on the river streamflow.
The simulated streamflow obtained from the model utilizing the rainfall data from the
SM2RAIN-ASCAT product closely aligns with the observed discharge, thereby supporting
the above deductions.
It is worth noting that while the SM2RAIN-ASCAT product has been shown to perform
well in the given watershed, several studies [8,49,55] have highlighted its limitations in
providing accurate precipitation estimates in mountainous regions, particularly those
covered by snow and glaciers. Thus, it is important to acknowledge that the SM2RAIN-
ASCAT product may not be the optimal choice for every mountainous watershed, and
alternative products should be considered based on the specific characteristics of the region
under study.
The GPM IMERG product also uses an algorithm that attempts to intercalibrate,
combine, and interpolate satellite microwave precipitation estimates, as well as microwave-
calibrated infrared satellite estimates, rain gauge analyses, and other precipitation estimates
at finer temporal and spatial scales [47]. This data product is further processed using
monthly gauge data, providing precipitation estimates with more accuracy and reliability
that ultimately reflects the model performance observed in this study. Because of the
usage of microwave-calibrated estimates incorporated into the product’s algorithm, GPM
IMERGF can easily detect light rainfall and snowfall, leading to better precipitation esti-
mates. This is particularly useful for mountainous watersheds such as the Myagdi Khola
watershed. Watersheds in mountainous regions typically receive light rainfall and snowfall.
Therefore, advanced functionalities incorporated into the algorithm of the GPM-IMERG
give more confidence to the model output and provide trust in accurately estimating river
discharge in the complex mountainous Himalayan watersheds.
Despite the calibration process, the model simulation runs failed to increase the
baseflow and peak flow, and it is worth delving into why the models failed to simulate
groundwater or snowmelt components in the Myagdi Khola watershed. The complex
topography of this watershed, where most mountain areas are covered by glaciers and
snow followed by forest cover, may be responsible for the failure to estimate or simulate
groundwater and snowmelt flows. The land cover data used as a model input might
not accurately represent the watershed, adding more uncertainties and limitations to the
simulations. The precipitation product alone might not be sufficient to simulate the runoff in
the watershed, and this might be why the model could not simulate enough flow even after
calibrating the model with important groundwater and snow parameters. Further, SPPs
that were considered might not have incorporated solid precipitation into their estimates,
causing a big difference in the simulated and observed streamflow.
Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 4762 16 of 20

The results highlight that setting up a hydrological model for a mountainous Hi-
malayan watershed is complex. There was an underperformance of modeled results with
all four SPPs used in this study. There were some notable limitations when carrying out
this study, which contributed to the underperformance of the models. Our study area has
no observed rainfall data; thus, we rely only on precipitation from SPPs as model inputs.
SPPs make many assumptions, and the data may not be accurate due to cloud cover or
missing data from equipment malfunctions.
Additionally, the Myagdi Khola watershed is regarded as an ungauged watershed,
with the only streamflow values available at the watershed’s outlet. The watershed was
assessed using selected SPPs with limited observations. Utilizing observed climate data to
calibrate and validate the satellite rainfall products before establishing a hydrological model
to evaluate streamflow would likely have yielded more accurate results and definitive
conclusions. Moreover, this study might have improved the simulation of streamflow
results and higher accuracy in the model performance metrics if a larger watershed was
considered for this kind of study, as carried out by [15,29].
The sensitivity analysis for the selected calibration parameters was not performed here
as this study’s main objective was to evaluate different SPPs, keeping model parameters and
model characteristics the same so that the results or output from the model show consistency
and are capable of comparison across all SPPs that are under consideration. Different
calibration parameters will be sensitive across four different SPPs under consideration,
making it challenging to evaluate models fed by these SPPs’ precipitation estimates. The
simulation, calibration, and validation period considered in this study was short to obtain
accurate predictions on the river discharge; therefore, taking a more extended period would
provide better prediction results.

6. Conclusions
This study aimed to evaluate the performance of SPPs in predicting the streamflow of
a complex mountainous watershed in Nepal. The following are the main findings from
this study:
(1) The hydrological modeling approach using SPPs effectively predicts streamflow in
mountainous watersheds with limited or no observed precipitation data. These
products can be used to study hydrological processes in ungauged mountainous
watersheds, albeit with some limitations.
(2) Four finer-resolution SPPs were assessed, and SM2RAIN-ASCAT exhibited the best
overall performance among other SPPs, followed closely by the GPM IMERGF in
simulating streamflow more accurately when compared with observed streamflow at
the outlet of the watershed.
(3) Monthly streamflow simulations driven by SPPs outperformed daily streamflow
simulations, and gauge-corrected satellite precipitation products fed into the model
outperformed in simulating discharge estimates in the watershed. The study found
that gauge-corrected SPPs can effectively simulate discharge in Himalayan water-
sheds, even with limited ground truth data.
(4) Although the performance metrics did not show promising results as anticipated
even after the extensive calibration process, they were within satisfactory to good
performance levels.
Overall, this study highlights the capability of SPPs in predicting the streamflow
of a mountainous watershed with minimal data available for validating estimates. The
study’s findings suggest that SPPs can address hydrological complexities in mountainous
watershed regions with some limitations. This study supports and highlights the use of
SPPs for hydrological studies in mountainous watersheds.

Supplementary Materials: The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https:
//www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/rs15194762/s1.
Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 4762 17 of 20

Author Contributions: Concept: A.A.; research methodology: A.A. and T.-N.-D.T.; analysis: A.A.;
writing—original draft: A.A.; writing-review and editing: A.A., T.-N.-D.T., B.K. and V.L. All authors
have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Data Availability Statement: Due to the confidentiality agreement between authors and providers,
the data are not publicly accessible.
Acknowledgments: We would like to express our gratitude to the developers of GPM IMERG,
MSWEP, SM2RAIN-ASCAT, and CHIRPS in making these products publicly accessible. We extend
our sincere gratitude to Kyung "Robin" Kim and Manh-Hung Le for helping us with data processing.
We would also like to thank Sophia Bakar for helping with the editing process. Additionally, we
would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments during this paper’s
review period.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors confirm that there are no conflict of interest in this study.

References
1. Arshad, A.; Zhang, W.; Zhang, Z.; Wang, S.; Zhang, B.; Jehanzeb, M.; Cheema, M.; Jafari, M. Reconstructing high-resolution
gridded precipitation data using an improved downscaling approach over the high altitude mountain regions of Upper Indus
Basin (UIB). Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 784, 147140. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
2. Bai, P.; Liu, X. Evaluation of Five Satellite-Based Precipitation Products in Two Gauge-Scarce Basins on the Tibetan Plateau.
Remote Sens. 2018, 10, 1316. [CrossRef]
3. Beck, H.E.; Vergopolan, N.; Pan, M.; Levizzani, V.; Van Dijk, A.I.J.M.; Weedon, G.P.; Brocca, L.; Pappenberger, F.; Huffman, G.J.;
Wood, E.F. Global-scale evaluation of 22 precipitation datasets using gauge observations and hydrological modeling. Hydrol.
Earth Syst. Sci. 2017, 21, 6201–6217. [CrossRef]
4. Nguyen, B.Q.; Tran, T.N.D.; Grodzka-Łukaszewska, M.; Sinicyn, G.; Lakshmi, V. Assessment of Urbanization-Induced Land-Use
Change and Its Impact on Temperature, Evaporation, and Humidity in Central Vietnam. Water 2022, 14, 3367. [CrossRef]
5. Sharannya, T.M.; Al-Ansari, N.; Barma, S.D.; Mahesha, A. Evaluation of Satellite Precipitation Products in Simulating Streamflow
in a Humid Tropical Catchment of India Using a Semi-Distributed Hydrological Model. Water 2020, 12, 2400. [CrossRef]
6. Tran, T.-N.-D.; Le, M.-H.; Zhang, R.; Nguyen, B.Q.; Bolten, J.D.; Lakshmi, V. Robustness of gridded precipitation products for
Vietnam basins using the comprehensive assessment framework of rainfall. Atmos. Res. 2023, 293, 106923. [CrossRef]
7. Hafizi, H.; Sorman, A.A. Assessment of 13 Gridded Precipitation Datasets for Hydrological Modeling in a Mountainous Basin.
Atmosphere 2022, 13, 143. [CrossRef]
8. Tran, T.-N.-D.; Nguyen, Q.B.; Zhang, R.; Aryal, A.; Łukaszewska, M.-G.; Sinicyn, G.; Lakshmi, V. Quantification of Gridded
Precipitation Products for the Streamflow Simulation on the Mekong River Basin Using Rainfall Assessment Framework: A Case
Study for the Srepok River Subbasin, Central Highland Vietnam. Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 1030. [CrossRef]
9. Tran, T.; Nguyen, Q.B.; Tam, D.; Le, L.; Nguyen, T.D.; Vo, N.D.; Gourbesville, P. Evaluate the Influence of Groynes System on the
Hydraulic Regime in the Ha Thanh Rive, Binh Dinh Province, Vietnam. In Advances in Hydroinformatics: Models for Complex and
Global Water Issues—Practices and Expectations; Springer: Singapore, 2022; pp. 241–254. [CrossRef]
10. Chang, C.; Lee, H.; Do, S.K.; Du, T.L.T.; Markert, K.; Hossain, F.; Khalique, S.; Piman, T.; Meechaiya, C.; Bui, D.D.; et al.
Operational forecasting inundation extents using REOF analysis (FIER) over lower Mekong and its potential economic impact on
agriculture. Environ. Model. Softw. 2023, 162, 105643. [CrossRef]
11. Du, T.L.T.; Lee, H.; Bui, D.D.; Graham, L.P.; Darby, S.D.; Pechlivanidis, I.G.; Leyland, J.; Biswas, N.K.; Choi, G.; Batelaan, O.;
et al. Streamflow Prediction in Highly Regulated, Transboundary Watersheds Using Multi-Basin Modeling and Remote Sensing
Imagery. Water Resour. Res. 2022, 58, 1–25. [CrossRef]
12. Gädeke, A.; Krysanova, V.; Aryal, A.; Chang, J.; Grillakis, M.; Hanasaki, N.; Koutroulis, A.; Pokhrel, Y.; Satoh, Y.;
Schaphoff, S.; et al. Performance evaluation of global hydrological models in six large Pan-Arctic watersheds. Clim. Chang. 2020,
163, 1329–1351. [CrossRef]
13. Bitew, M.M.; Gebremichael, M. Evaluation of satellite rainfall products through hydrologic simulation in a fully distributed
hydrologic model. Water Resour. Res. 2011, 47, 6526. [CrossRef]
14. Joshi, B.B.; Ali, M.; Aryal, D.; Paneru, L.; Shrestha, B. Spatial Pattern of Precipitation in GPM-Era Satellite Products against Rain
Gauge Measurements over Nepal. Jalawaayu 2021, 1, 39–56. [CrossRef]
15. Kumar, B.; Lakshmi, V. Accessing the capability of TRMM 3B42 V7 to simulate streamflow during extreme rain events: Case
study for a Himalayan River Basin. J. Earth Syst. Sci. 2018, 127, 27. [CrossRef]
16. Le, M.H.; Lakshmi, V.; Bolten, J.; Bui, D.D. Adequacy of Satellite-derived Precipitation Estimate for Hydrological Modeling in
Vietnam Basins. J. Hydrol. 2020, 586, 124820. [CrossRef]
17. Prajapati, R.; Silwal, P.; Duwal, S.; Shrestha, S.; Kafle, A.S.; Talchabhadel, R.; Kumar, S. Detectability of rainfall characteristics
over a mountain river basin in the Himalayan region from 2000 to 2015 using ground- and satellite-based products. Theor. Appl.
Climatol. 2022, 147, 185–204. [CrossRef]
Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 4762 18 of 20

18. Luo, X.; Wu, W.; He, D.; Li, Y.; Ji, X. Hydrological Simulation Using TRMM and CHIRPS Precipitation Estimates in the Lower
Lancang-Mekong River Basin. Chin. Geogr. Sci. 2019, 29, 13–25. [CrossRef]
19. Sunilkumar, K.; Yatagai, A.; Masuda, M. Preliminary Evaluation of GPM-IMERG Rainfall Estimates Over Three Distinct Climate
Zones with APHRODITE. Earth Space Sci. 2019, 6, 1321–1335. [CrossRef]
20. Yatagai, A.; Arakawa, O.; Kamiguchi, K.; Kawamoto, H.; Nodzu, M.I.; Hamada, A. A 44-Year Daily Gridded Precipitation Dataset
for Asia Based on a Dense Network of Rain Gauges. SOLA 2009, 5, 137–140. [CrossRef]
21. Hannah, D.M.; Kansakar, S.R.; Gerrard, A.J.; Rees, G. Flow regimes of Himalayan rivers of Nepal: Nature and spatial patterns. J.
Hydrol. 2005, 308, 18–32. [CrossRef]
22. Immerzeel, W.W.; Lutz, A.F.; Andrade, M.; Bahl, A.; Biemans, H.; Bolch, T.; Hyde, S.; Brumby, S.; Davies, B.J.; Elmore, A.C.; et al.
Importance and vulnerability of the world’s water towers. Nature 2019, 577, 364–369. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
23. Hamal, K.; Khadka, N.; Rai, S.; Joshi, B.B.; Dotel, J.; Khadka, L.; Bag, N.; Ghimire, S.K.; Shrestha, D. Evaluation of the TRMM
Product for Spatio-Temporal Characteristics of Precipitation over Nepal (1998–2018). J. Inst. Sci. Technol. 2020, 25, 39–48.
[CrossRef]
24. Krakauer, N.Y.; Pradhanang, S.M.; Lakhankar, T.; Jha, A.K. Evaluating Satellite Products for Precipitation Estimation in Mountain
Regions: A Case Study for Nepal. Remote Sens. 2013, 5, 4107–4123. [CrossRef]
25. Diodato, N.; Tartari, G.; Bellocchi, G. Geospatial Rainfall Modelling at Eastern Nepalese Highland from Ground Environmental
Data. Water Resour. Manag. 2010, 24, 2703–2720. [CrossRef]
26. Islam Md, N.; Das, S.; Uyeda, H. Calibration of TRMM derived rainfall over Nepal during 1998–2007. Open Atmos. Sci. J. 2010,
4, 12–23. [CrossRef]
27. Islam, M.A.; Yu, B.; Cartwright, N. Assessment and comparison of five satellite precipitation products in Australia. J. Hydrol.
2020, 590, 125474. [CrossRef]
28. Ji, X.; Li, Y.; Luo, X.; He, D.; Guo, R.; Wang, J.; Bai, Y.; Yue, C.; Liu, C. Evaluation of bias correction methods for APHRODITE data
to improve hydrologic simulation in a large Himalayan basin. Atmos. Res. 2020, 242, 104964. [CrossRef]
29. Kumar, S.; Amarnath, G.; Ghosh, S.; Park, E.; Baghel, T.; Wang, J.; Pramanik, M.; Belbase, D. Assessing the Performance of the
Satellite-Based Precipitation Products (SPP) in the Data-Sparse Himalayan Terrain. Remote Sens. 2022, 14, 4810. [CrossRef]
30. Ren, P.; Li, J.; Feng, P.; Guo, Y.; Ma, Q. Evaluation of Multiple Satellite Precipitation Products and Their Use in Hydrological
Modelling over the Luanhe River Basin, China. Water 2018, 10, 677. [CrossRef]
31. Shen, Y.; Xiong, A. Validation and comparison of a new gauge-based precipitation analysis over mainland China. Int. J. Climatol.
2016, 36, 252–265. [CrossRef]
32. Viviroli, D.; Dürr, H.H.; Messerli, B.; Meybeck, M.; Weingartner, R. Mountains of the world, water towers for humanity: Typology,
mapping, and global significance. Water Resour. Res. 2007, 43, 7447. [CrossRef]
33. Yamamoto, M.K.; Ueno, K.; Nakamura, K. Comparison of Satellite Precipitation Products with Rain Gauge Data for the Khumb
Region, Nepal Himalayas. J. Meteorol. Soc. Jpn. 2011, 89, 597–610. [CrossRef]
34. Noor, R.; Arshad, A.; Shafeeque, M.; Liu, J.; Baig, A. Combining APHRODITE Rain Gauges-Based Precipitation with Downscaled-
TRMM Data to Translate High-Resolution Precipitation Estimates in the Indus Basin. Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 318. [CrossRef]
35. Chinnasamy, P.; Sood, A. Estimation of sediment load for Himalayan Rivers: Case study of Kaligandaki in Nepal. J. Earth Syst.
Sci. 2020, 129, 181. [CrossRef]
36. Ahmed, K.; Shahid, S.; Wang, X.; Nawaz, N.; Najeebullah, K. Evaluation of gridded precipitation datasets over arid regions of
Pakistan. Water 2019, 11, 210. [CrossRef]
37. Ahmed, Z.; Tran, T.N.D.; Nguyen, Q.B. Applying semi distribution hydrological model SWAT to assess hydrological regime in
Lai Giang catchment, Binh Dinh Province, Vietnam. In Proceedings of the 2nd Conference on Sustainability in Civil Engineering
(CSCE’20), Capital University of Science and Technology, Islamabad, Pakistan, 12 August 2020; Available online: https://csce.
cust.edu.pk/archive/20-404.pdf (accessed on 27 October 2022).
38. Bhatta, B.; Shrestha, S.; Shrestha, P.K.; Talchabhadel, R. Evaluation and application of a SWAT model to assess the climate change
impact on the hydrology of the Himalayan River Basin. Catena 2019, 181, 104082. [CrossRef]
39. Bhatta, B.; Shrestha, S.; Shrestha, P.K.; Talchabhadel, R. Modelling the impact of past and future climate scenarios on streamflow
in a highly mountainous watershed: A case study in the West Seti River Basin, Nepal. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 740, 140156.
[CrossRef]
40. Hasan, M.A.; Pradhanang, S.M. Estimation of flow regime for a spatially varied Himalayan watershed using improved multi-site
calibration of the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) model. Environ. Earth Sci. 2017, 76, 787. [CrossRef]
41. Kumar, B.; Lakshmi, V.; Asce, M.; Patra, K.C. Evaluating the Uncertainties in the SWAT Model Outputs due to DEM Grid Size
and Resampling Techniques in a Large Himalayan River Basin. J. Hydrol. Eng. 2017, 22, 04017039. [CrossRef]
42. Tran, T.N.D.; Nguyen, B.Q.; Le, M.-H.; Lakshmi, V.V.; Bolten, J.D.; Aryal, A. Robustness of Gridded Precipitation Products in
Hydrological Assessment for Vietnam River Basins. In Proceedings of the AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts, Chicago, IL, USA, 12–16
December 2022; p. H22M-07.
43. Tran, T.N.D.; Nguyen, Q.B.; Vo, N.D.; Marshall, R.; Gourbesville, P. Assessment of Terrain Scenario Impacts on Hydrological
Simulation with SWAT Model. Application to Lai Giang Catchment, Vietnam. In Advances in Hydroinformatics: Models for Complex
and Global Water Issues—Practices and Expectations; Springer: Singapore, 2022; pp. 1205–1222. [CrossRef]
Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 4762 19 of 20

44. NASA JPL. NASADEM Merged DEM Global 1 Arc Second V001; Distributed by OpenTopography; NASA: Washington, DC, USA,
2021. [CrossRef]
45. FRTC/ICIMOD. Land cover of Nepal [Data Set]; ICIMOD: Lalitpur, Nepal, 2022. [CrossRef]
46. FAO. Harmonized World Soil Database—19th World Congress of Soil Science, Soil Solutions for a Changing World. Available
online: http://www.fao.org/soils-portal/data-hub/soil-maps-and-databases/harmonized-world-soil-database-v12/en/%0
Ahttp://www.fao.org/soils-portal/soil-survey/soil-maps-and-databases/harmonized-world-soil-database-v12/en/ (accessed
on 5 November 2022).
47. Hou, A.Y.; Kakar, R.K.; Neeck, S.; Azarbarzin, A.A.; Kummerow, C.D.; Kojima, M.; Oki, R.; Nakamura, K.; Iguchi, T. The global
precipitation measurement mission. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 2014, 95, 701–722. [CrossRef]
48. Beck, H.E.; Wood, E.F.; Pan, M.; Fisher, C.K.; Miralles, D.G.; Van Dijk, A.I.J.M.; McVicar, T.R.; Adler, R.F. MSWep v2 Global
3-hourly 0.1◦ precipitation: Methodology and quantitative assessment. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 2019, 100, 473–500. [CrossRef]
49. Brocca, L.; Filippucci, P.; Hahn, S.; Ciabatta, L.; Massari, C.; Camici, S.; Schüller, L.; Bojkov, B.; Wagner, W. SM2RAIN-ASCAT
(2007–2018): Global daily satellite rainfall data from ASCAT soil moisture observations. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 2019, 11, 1583–1601.
[CrossRef]
50. Funk, C.; Peterson, P.; Landsfeld, M.; Pedreros, D.; Verdin, J.; Shukla, S.; Husak, G.; Rowland, J.; Harrison, L.; Hoell, A.; et al.
The climate hazards infrared precipitation with stations—A new environmental record for monitoring extremes. Sci. Data 2015,
2, 150066. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
51. Yuan, F.; Wang, B.; Shi, C.; Cui, W.; Zhao, C.; Liu, Y.; Ren, L.; Zhang, L.; Zhu, Y.; Chen, T.; et al. Evaluation of hydrological utility
of IMERG Final run V05 and TMPA 3B42V7 satellite precipitation products in the Yellow River source region, China. J. Hydrol.
2018, 567, 696–711. [CrossRef]
52. Beck, H.E.; Van Dijk, A.I.J.M.; Levizzani, V.; Schellekens, J.; Miralles, D.G.; Martens, B.; De Roo, A. MSWEP: 3-hourly 0.25◦ global
gridded precipitation (1979–2015) by merging gauge, satellite, and reanalysis data. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2017, 21, 589–615.
[CrossRef]
53. Brocca, L.; Hasenauer, S.; Kidd, R.; Dorigo, W.; Wagner, W.; Levizzani, V. Soil as a natural rain gauge: Estimating global rainfall
from satellite soil moisture data. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 2014, 119, 5128–5141. [CrossRef]
54. Chiaravalloti, F.; Brocca, L.; Procopio, A.; Massari, C.; Gabriele, S. Assessment of GPM and SM2RAIN-ASCAT rainfall products
over complex terrain in southern Italy. Atmos. Res. 2018, 206, 64–74. [CrossRef]
55. Wagner, W.; Hahn, S.; Kidd, R.; Melzer, T.; Bartalis, Z.; Hasenauer, S.; Figa-Saldaña, J.; De Rosnay, P.; Jann, A.; Schneider, S.; et al.
The ASCAT soil moisture product: A review of its specifications, validation results, and emerging applications. Meteorol. Z. 2013,
22, 5–33. [CrossRef]
56. Arnold, J.G.; Srinivasan, R.; Muttiah, R.S.; Williams, J.R. Large Area Hydrologic Modeling and Assessment Part I: Model
Development. JAWRA J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 1998, 34, 73–89. [CrossRef]
57. Arnold, J.G.; Kiniry, J.R.; Srinivasan, R.; Williams, J.R.; Haney, E.B.; Neitsch, S.L. SWAT Input Data. 2012. Chapter 29. pp. 393–406.
Available online: https://swat.tamu.edu/docs/ (accessed on 25 October 2022).
58. Neitsch, S.L.; Arnold, J.G.; Kiniry, J.R.; Williams, J.R. Soil & Water Assessment Tool Theoretical Documentation Version 2009; Texas
Water Resources Institute: College Station, TX, USA, 2011; pp. 1–647. [CrossRef]
59. Tapas, M.; Etheridge, J.R.; Howard, G.; Lakshmi, V.V.; Tran, T.N.D. Development of a Socio-Hydrological Model for a Coastal
Watershed: Using Stakeholders’ Perceptions. In Proceedings of the AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts, Chicago, IL, USA, 12–16
December 2022; p. H22O-0996.
60. Arshad, A.; Mirchi, A.; Samimi, M.; Ahmad, B. Combining downscaled-GRACE data with SWAT to improve the estimation of
groundwater storage and depletion variations in the Irrigated Indus Basin (IIB). Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 838, 156044. [CrossRef]
61. Aryal, A.; Tran, T.N.D.; Kim, K.Y.; Rajaram, H.; Lakshmi, V.V. Climate and Land Use/Land Cover Change Impacts on Hydrological
Processes in the Mountain Watershed of Gandaki River Basin, Nepal. In Proceedings of the AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts, Chicago,
IL, USA, 14 December 2022; p. H52L-0615.
62. Mondal, A.; Le, M.H.; Lakshmi, V. Land use, climate, and water change in the Vietnamese Mekong Delta (VMD) using earth
observation and hydrological modeling. J. Hydrol. Reg. Stud. 2022, 42, 101132. [CrossRef]
63. Tran, T.N.D.; Nguyen, Q.B.; Vo, N.D.; Le, M.H.; Nguyen, Q.D.; Lakshmi, V.; Bolten, J. Quantification of Global Digital Elevation
Model (DEM)—A Case Study of the Newly Released NASADEM for a River Basin in Central Vietnam. J. Hydrol. Reg. Stud. 2022,
45, 101282. [CrossRef]
64. Abbaspour, K.C.; Rouholahnejad, E.; Vaghefi, S.; Srinivasan, R.; Yang, H.; Kløve, B. A continental-scale hydrology and water
quality model for Europe: Calibration and uncertainty of a high-resolution large-scale SWAT model. J. Hydrol. 2015, 524, 733–752.
[CrossRef]
65. Abbaspour, K.C.; Yang, J.; Maximov, I.; Siber, R.; Bogner, K.; Mieleitner, J.; Zobrist, J.; Srinivasan, R. Modelling hydrology and
water quality in the pre-alpine/alpine Thur watershed using SWAT. J. Hydrol. 2007, 333, 413–430. [CrossRef]
66. Moriasi, D.N.; Arnold, J.G.; Van Liew, M.W.; Bingner, R.L.; Harmel, R.D.; Veith, T.L. Model evaluation guidelines for systematic
quantification of accuracy in watershed simulations. Trans. ASABE 2007, 50, 885–900. [CrossRef]
67. Moriasi, D.N.; Gitau, M.W.; Pai, N.; Daggupati, P. Hydrologic and water quality models: Performance measures and evaluation
criteria. Trans. ASABE 2015, 58, 1763–1785. [CrossRef]
Remote Sens. 2023, 15, 4762 20 of 20

68. Nash, J.E.; Sutcliffe, J.V. River flow forecasting through conceptual models part I—A discussion of principles. J. Hydrol. 1970,
10, 282–290. [CrossRef]
69. Shrestha, D.; Sharma, S.; Hamal, K.; Khan Jadoon, U.; Dawadi, B. Spatial Distribution of Extreme Precipitation Events and Its
Trend in Nepal. Appl. Ecol. Environ. Sci. 2020, 9, 58–66. [CrossRef]
70. Nepal, B.; Shrestha, D.; Sharma, S.; Shrestha, M.S.; Aryal, D.; Shrestha, N. Assessment of GPM-Era Satellite Products’ (IMERG
and GSMaP) Ability to Detect Precipitation Extremes over Mountainous Country Nepal. Atmosphere 2021, 12, 254. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.