METEOROLOGICAL APPLICATIONS

Meteorol. Appl. (2015)

Published online in Wiley Online Library
(wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/met.1491

Long-term runoff study using SARIMA and ARIMA models

in the United States
Mohammad Valipour*
Young Researchers and Elite Club, Kermanshah Branch, Islamic Azad University, Kermanshah, Iran

ABSTRACT: In this study, the ability of the seasonal autoregressive integrated moving average (SARIMA) and autoregressive
integrated moving average (ARIMA) models was investigated for long-term runoff forecasting in the United States. In the first
stage, the amount of runoff is forecasted for 2011 in each US state using the data from 1901 to 2010 (mean of all stations in
each state). The results show that the accuracy of the SARIMA model is better than that of the ARIMA model. The relative
error of the SARIMA model for all states is <5%. In the second stage, the runoff is forecasted for 2001 to 2011 by using the
average annual runoff data from 1901 to 2000. The SARIMA model with periodic term equal to 20, R2 = 0.91, and mean bias
error (MBE) = 1.29 mm is the best model in this stage. According to the obtained results, a trend is observed between annual
runoff data in the United States every 20 years or almost a quarter century.
KEY WORDS

ARIMA; hydrological processes; periodic term; runoff forecasting; seasonal trend

Received 8 July 2014; Revised 9 November 2014; Accepted 18 November 2014

1.

Runoff forecasting history

Schar et al. (2004) forecasted a seasonal runoff using precipitation from meteorological data assimilation systems. The high
correlations suggest that a reliable seasonal runoff forecasting system can be constructed from the statistical relationship between the model-assimilated precipitation and subsequent
runoff. Artificial neural network is one of the other approaches
for runoff forecasting. In addition, seasonal runoff was simulated
using Hydrologic Engineering Center (HEC) models (Anderson
et al., 2002). Patry and Marino (1984c) presented a two-stage
urban runoff forecast model. This approach was found to be
particularly useful for lead times of up to 30 min. Wang et al.
(2011) developed a modified rational equation for arid-region
runoff estimation successfully. Habib et al. (2007) investigated
the effect of local systematic and random errors of the commonly
used tipping-bucket (TB) rain gauges on the accuracy of runoff
predictions. The computed runoff differences caused by the TB
random errors were dependent on the magnitude of the runoff
discharge, and on the temporal resolution of the rainfall input. In
recent decades, radar information helps researchers in accurate
forecasting of runoff data (Rahimi et al., 2014). Patry and Marino
(1984a, 1984b) investigated the sensitivity and application of different equation models to real-time urban runoff forecasting.

2. SARIMA and ARIMA applications in hydrological

forecasting
Among the many methods and models available for investigating long-term forecasts, such as stochastic models, fuzzy theory,
artificial neural network (Banihabib et al., 2012; Valipour et al.,

2012a), and rough theory, autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) and seasonal autoregressive integrated moving
average (SARIMA) models have been applied based on stochastic theory; considering the serial correlation among observations, and by providing for systematic searching in each stage
(identification, estimation and diagnostic check) an appropriate
model was always applied to ensure that the hydrological forecast
exhibited a strong random component (Zhang et al., 2011).
Valipour et al. (2013) compared autoregressive moving average (ARMA), ARIMA and the autoregressive artificial neural
network models in forecasting the monthly inflow of the Dez
reservoir. The inflow to the reservoir shows that the ARIMA
models results match the forecast compared with the ARMA
model. Valipour (2012b), using time series models, determined
the required observation data for rainfall forecasting according
to the climate conditions. By comparing the R2 of the models,
it was determined that time series models are more appropriate
for rainfall forecasting in semi-arid climates. In addition, considering the importance of an accurate estimation of evapotranspiration (Psilovikos and Elhag 2013, Valipour 2014a; Valipour
2015; Valipour and Eslamian, 2014), ARIMA can be a powerful model for forecasting evapotranspiration in hydrometeorology and irrigation water requirement (Mahdizadeh Khasraghi
et al., 2014; Valipour, 2014b, 2014c; Valipour et al., 2014).
Valipour (2013a, 2013b) forecasted snow water equivalent using
the ARIMA model with a relation error of <10%. Valipour
(2012a, 2012c) determined the critical areas in Iran for agricultural water management according to the annual rainfall by using
ARIMA model. Using the collected data, a rainfall forecast for
the next 1 year was made by the ARIMA model.

3.
* Correspondence: M. Valipour, Young Researchers and Elite Club, Kermanshah Branch, Islamic Azad University, Kermanshah, Iran. E-mail:
vali-pour@hotmail.com

2015 Royal Meteorological Society

Necessity and novelties of this study

Some of the limitations (according to the previous studies) are

as follows: (1) most of the studies focused on short or medium
term (daily, weekly or monthly) runoff forecasting; (2) the results

M. Valipour

obtained were applicable for specified climate conditions but not

for various climate conditions; (3) the ARMA and ARIMA models were considered more than the SARIMA model among the
time series models used for hydrological forecasting (however,
the accuracy of the SARIMA model can be increased compared
to other time series models by using an appropriate periodic
term); (4) although the use of other hydrological parameters such
as rainfall improves accuracy of forecasting, these data are not
collected in all regions, and (5) in the cases where runoff is forecasted for basins that are spread across more than one state, decision making is difficult for the governments.
In this study, the ARIMA and SARIMA (with different periodic
terms) models were applied to long-term runoff forecasting
(useable for macroeconomic management decisions) as well as
for dealing with all of the mentioned limitations across the United
States (with different climate conditions).

4.

Materials and methods

models including ARIMA, SARIMA2, SARIMA5, SARIMA11,

SARIMA22 and SARIMA55 were used for forecasting the
runoff in 52 US states and also eight different models, ARIMA,
SARIMA2, SARIMA4, SARIMA5, SARIMA10, SARIMA20,
SARIMA25 and SARIMA50 were used for forecasting the average runoff across the United States.
To investigate the accuracy of the SARIMA and ARIMA
models in the runoff forecasting for each state, the relative error
is used as follows:
RE = 100 |RO RF |RO

where RE is the relative error (%), RO is the observed runoff

(mm) for each state in 2011 and RF is the forecasted runoff (mm)
for each state in 2011.
In this study, two different indices are used to assess the ability
of the SARIMA and ARIMA models in runoff forecasting for the
entire United States as follows:

(RO RF )2 (RO RA )2
(5)
R2 = 1

In this study, the SARIMA and ARIMA models were used for
runoff forecasting as follows:
Seasonal autoregressive integrated moving average
= SARIMA (p, d, q) (P, D, Q)s

(1)

Autoregressive integrated moving average = ARIMA (p, d, q)

(2)
where p is the order of the non-seasonal autoregressive model,
q is the order of non-seasonal moving average model, P is the
order of seasonal autoregressive model, Q is the order of seasonal
moving average model, d is the number of non-seasonal differences, D is the number of seasonal differences and s is the periodic term. All the ARIMA and SARIMA models were checked
using Akaike information criterion (AIC). The necessary stages
for determining the mentioned parameters were created using the
MINITAB software. It provides a simple, effective way to input
statistical data, manipulate that data, identify trends and patterns
and then extrapolate the answers to the problem at hand. That
is a rather simplistic way of describing this vital and extremely
effective tool (http://www.6sigma.us/minitab-training.php).
The periodic term mentioned earlier is obtained by using the
revision of the Valipours equation (Valipour et al., 2012b) as
follows:
s = {A B} {1}
(3)
where A is the set of divisors of the calibration data number and
B is the set of multiples of 1, but not 12 because in this study,
forecasting has been done for the annual term (long term) using
yearly runoff data; thus the assumption that each 12 month period
has a trend, was not usable. In Equation (1), the relationship
between each data and itself is not significant, therefore, minus
one is necessary.
In this study, the first runoff is forecasted for 2011 in each
US state using the annual runoff data from 1901 to 2010 (calibration data include mean of all stations in each state) then the
runoff for 2001 to 2011 was forecasted for the entire United
States using average annual runoff data from 1901 to 2000 (calibration data). In the first stage, A = 110 and therefore s = {2, 5,
11, 22, 55, 110} and in the second stage A = 100 and therefore
s = {2, 4, 5, 10, 20, 25, 50, 100}. When s = 110 and s = 100, it
means that there are no seasonal trends in the first and second
stages, respectively, and these values 110 and 100 are equivalent to the ARIMA model findings. Therefore, six different
2015 Royal Meteorological Society

(4)

MBE =

(RO RF )n

(6)

where RA is the average annual observed runoff of 237.20 mm

from 2001 to 2011 and n is the number of forecasted datasets
equal to 11 (20012011) (MBE, mean bias error).
In this study only runoff data are applied for annual runoff
forecasting but annual average data of temperature ( C), relative
humidity (%) and rainfall (mm) were also collected from all
the US states and the distribution maps of these hydrological
variables were plotted for all the US states using these data. It
is useful to find reasons of the best periodic term for each state.
Figure 1 shows the map plotted based on the collected annual
hydrological data of temperature, relative humidity, rainfall and
runoff.

5.

Results and discussion

As Figure 1 shows, temperature increases from north to south.

The increasing trend is slow (e.g. compare Wyoming with Montana) as a result, in New Mexico the temperature is lower than
that of other southern states. Apart from the 8 states (Montana,
Wyoming, Nevada, Idaho, New Mexico, Utah, Colorado and
Arizona), the relative humidity is >64% in the remaining 44
states. Amounts of rainfall for eastern states, especially southeast states, are higher than the other states. In the maps showing
rainfall and runoff data the values of these parameters increase as
one goes from the centre to the periphery. However, comparing
these two maps shows some conflict: in Washington and Hawaii
states, the rainfall values are <800 and 600 mm respectively, but
the runoffs are >800 and 1000 mm, respectively. These cases
indicate that the amount of snowmelt in these states is high. In
Texas and in the central and eastern states, the runoff values
are much lower than the rainfall. This can be due to natural
causes such as high evaporation due to hot and sultry weather or
controlling the runoff by government policy and management.
5.1. Runoff forecasting for each state of the United States
After running 72 different structures for the ARIMA model and
more than 5000 different structures (using MINITAB software)
for each of the SARIMA models (based on the periodic term),
the best structure for each of the models was obtained.
Meteorol. Appl. (2015)

Runoff forecasting using SARIMA

Figure 1. The map designed based on gathered annual hydrological data for temperature, relative humidity, rainfall and runoff. Note that ranges
in the figure legend include values greater than or equal to the lower bound and less than the upper bound indicated. See http://en.wikipedia.org/
wiki/List_of_U.S._state_abbreviations for definition US state abbreviations.

In the ARIMA models, the minimum and maximum relative

errors are related to the District of Columbia and Texas states,
respectively. This finding indicates the wide range of changes
in the relative error of ARIMA model due to different trends
in the runoff data for each state. In this study, accuracy of the
ARIMA model increased when using five autoregressive and
moving average parameters (p = 5 and q = 5) instead of the two
parameters, similar to previous studies. The accuracy of the
ARIMA model is not dependent on the amount of observed
runoff in 2011. For example, in Arizona, observed runoff in 2011
was 8.55 mm (the minimum among all states), forecasted runoff
was 9.36 mm, and RE = 9.46% (a good forecasting); in Puerto
Rico observed runoff was around 1000 mm and RE = 15.78%
(a moderate forecasting); but in Ohio observed runoff was
593.05 (a moderate runoff according to the Table 1) and the
RE = 34.69% (a poor forecasting). The cases that are valid for
the ARIMA model are also correct for the SARIMA models. In
the SARIMA55 model, the value of the seasonal parameters (P,
D and Q) is never more than 1 because of the periodic term (55)
and overflow error.
Figure 2 can be used for better perception about performance
of forecasting models applied in this study. In 44% of cases
(23 states), RE was >30% (poor forecasting) in the ARIMA
model and only in 10% of cases (5 states), RE was <5% (excellent forecasting). Therefore, the ARIMA model had the minimum accuracy among all models in this study based on relative
error. In the SARIMA2 and SARIMA5 models, the percentage
related to poor forecasting was reduced and the percentage
2015 Royal Meteorological Society

related to excellent forecasting was higher than in the ARIMA

model; however, the majority of the states have RE >30%. In
the SARIMA11 model, 19 states had RE <5% and thus the percentage related to the excellent forecasting was more than that
of other forecasting models. However, the best model of excellent forecasting was SARIMA22 with 36 states for which relative error was <5%. This model forecasted the runoff for all US
states as excellent or good except for eight states. By increasing
the periodic term from 22 to 55, performance of the SARIMA
model is reduced significantly. In the SARIMA55 model, the
number of states with excellent forecasting was 52% less than
SARIMA22.
Table 1 shows the best models for each state based on relative
error. According to Table 1 at least one of the SARIMA models is
capable of runoff forecasting for all the US states with RE <5%.
The minimum and maximum relative errors in SARIMA11 relate
to Delaware and Mississippi states, respectively.
Figure 3 shows the best obtained results for runoff forecasting
in each of the US state. Figure 3 confirms the capability of each
SARIMA model in Figure 2. According to Figure 3 most US
states are compatible with SARIMA22 model. The SARIMA11
model was placed in second order in this respect.
The time series related to the annual runoff of each state
was drawn for better understanding of Figure 3. In Figure 3,
the states that were situated close to each other (and therefore with similar climate and hydrological processes) showed
compatibility with a specific SARIMA model, with the exception of Kansas. According to the annual runoff time series,
Meteorol. Appl. (2015)

M. Valipour
Table 1. The best runoff forecasting models for each US state in 2011.
State

Best model

Alabama

SARIMA11
(5,1,1)(0,1,1)
SARIMA55
(4,0,5)(0,0,1)
SARIMA22
(5,0,1)(0,1,1)
SARIMA5
(5,1,3)(0,1,1)
SARIMA22
(5,3,1)(0,1,1)
SARIMA55
(5,0,1)(0,1,1)
SARIMA11
(4,1,2)(0,1,3)
SARIMA5
(2,0,3)(3,0,1)
SARIMA2
(1,1,4)(3,0,1)
SARIMA22
(4,0,4)(1,1,0)
SARIMA11
(5,1,3)(0,1,2)
SARIMA11
(1,1,2)(2,0,1)
SARIMA22
(5,2,0)(4,0,1)
SARIMA11
(0,1,1)(2,1,1)
SARIMA22
(3,1,0)(0,1,2)
SARIMA11
(3,1,1)(3,0,1)
SARIMA22
(2,0,0)(1,2,0)
SARIMA11
(0,0,2)(2,0,1)
SARIMA22
(2,3,1)(1,1,1)
SARIMA22
(4,1,2)(2,1,0)
SARIMA2
(0,0,4)(3,0,1)
SARIMA22
(0,3,2)(0,0,1)
SARIMA22
(1,0,2)(2,0,1)
SARIMA22
(0,2,2)(2,1,1)
SARIMA22
(2,0,2)(3,1,2)
SARIMA5
(0,1,1)(3,1,1)

Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri

Observed
(mm)

Forecasted
(mm)

RE
(%)

368.52

370.39

0.51

Montana

599.50

586.79

2.12

Nebraska

8.55

8.65

1.17

Nevada

377.02

372.10

1.31

New Hampshire

338.60

349.11

3.10

New Jersey

92.95

90.83

2.28

New Mexico

1034.30

1033.60

0.07

New York

453.26

453.12

0.03

North Carolina

422.22

424.79

0.61

North Dakota

145.60

151.48

4.04

Ohio

186.84

180.26

3.52

Oklahoma

1550.06

1545.11

0.32

Oregon

359.74

360.17

0.12

Pennsylvania

412.08

413.07

0.24

Puerto Rico

495.40

504.48

1.83

Rhode Island

305.45

306.63

0.39

South Carolina

36.85

35.03

4.94

South Dakota

631.48

620.61

1.72

Tennessee

111.18

116.34

4.64

Texas

957.13

925.61

3.29

Utah

455.51

455.12

0.09

Vermont

850.86

812.16

4.55

Virginia

333.96

333.75

0.06

Washington

287.77

300.14

4.30

West Virginia

299.20

284.35

4.96

Wisconsin

331.70

326.17

1.67

Wyoming

although runoff was always <250 mm for Kansas, in this small

range intensity of changes and peaks were more similar for
states such as Minnesota, Montana and Wyoming. In addition,
amount of runoff in Kansas was 36.85 mm in 2011, which was
less than half of the annual runoff mean (from 1901 to 2011)
in this state. Therefore, it was required that s > 11 (compared
to neighbouring states). In Maryland, District of Columbia and
Virginia there is better forecasting with minimum periodic term.
In these three states because of almost moderate hydrological
2015 Royal Meteorological Society

State

Best model
SARIMA22
(2,4,1)(1,1,1)
SARIMA5
(0,0,4)(3,0,1)
SARIMA22
(0,3,1)(1,1,1)
SARIMA22
(0,1,1)(2,1,1)
SARIMA22
(0,2,2)(0,1,1)
SARIMA11
(0,0,4)(1,1,2)
SARIMA22
(3,1,2)(2,1,2)
SARIMA11
(0,1,1)(5,1,0)
SARIMA22
(4,4,0)(1,0,2)
SARIMA22
(2,2,1)(0,1,1)
SARIMA55
(1,0,0)(1,0,0)
SARIMA22
(2,2,0)(1,0,0)
SARIMA22
(2,2,2)(2,1,1)
SARIMA11
(4,0,2)(0,0,1)
SARIMA5
(0,0,3)(2,0,3)
SARIMA22
(3,0,2)(2,0,1)
SARIMA22
(0,3,1)(2,0,0)
SARIMA11
(1,1,3)(3,0,1)
SARIMA55
(5,0,0)(1,0,0)
SARIMA22
(2,3,2)(2,1,0)
SARIMA22
(2,2,2)(2,1,1)
SARIMA2
(0,0,4)(4,0,1)
SARIMA11
(0,0,5)(4,1,0)
SARIMA22
(0,0,4)(3,0,1)
SARIMA11
(2,1,0)(3,0,1)
SARIMA22
(2,4,1)(1,1,1)

Observed
(mm)

Forecasted
(mm)

RE
(%)

214.82

216.52

0.79

56.60

56.65

0.09

68.90

71.50

3.78

863.97

865.15

0.14

880.27

843.26

4.20

11.06

11.28

2.01

952.39

914.77

3.95

271.89

276.04

1.53

110.14

105.85

3.89

593.05

613.69

3.48

66.23

67.36

1.71

599.54

576.13

3.90

826.04

864.23

4.62

998.96

1045.94

4.70

642.83

643.03

0.03

171.35

177.90

3.82

91.66

94.61

3.22

581.12

583.22

0.36

12.30

11.79

4.11

105.21

109.68

4.25

1036.29

1024.72

1.12

334.93

345.44

3.14

1103.22

1134.69

2.85

596.16

595.10

0.18

356.72

350.94

1.62

141.23

140.90

0.24

processes (Figure 1) and runoff rate between 200 and 600 mm,
all runoff events were forecasted by choosing s = 2. However,
SARIMA22 also obtained acceptable values for these states
(Figure 2). For many states more than one model could be used;
however, only in five states relative error values were <10% in
all models (Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, Delaware and
Maryland). In Nebraska, Arkansas, Rhode Island and Delaware,
although SARIMA55 obtained a better forecasting, SARIMA22
was also able to forecast runoff with RE < 10%. However, in
Meteorol. Appl. (2015)

Runoff forecasting using SARIMA

Figure 2. Performance of runoff forecasting models applied in this study based on forecasting accuracy.

Missouri, the SARIMA22 model could not forecast like the

SARIMA5 model. In this state, the amount of runoff from 1901
to 1922 (22 years) was <200 mm; however, a time period of
22 years and RO = 200 mm were not repeated in later years. The
SARIMA model assumes that periods with s = 22 will occur
in the future (calibration stage). This assumption reduced the
accuracy of the SARIMA22 model. In Oklahoma, Alaska and
Texas, performance of the SARIMA55 model was much better
than that of the SARIMA22 model. Although runoff was always
<300 mm (with the exception of 1920) for Oklahoma, in this
small range, intensity of changes and peaks were more similar for states such as Minnesota and Wisconsin. In addition, the
runoff in Oklahoma was 60.23 mm in 2011 which was less than
half of the annual mean runoff (from 1901 to 2011) in this state.
Therefore, it was required that s > 22 for better forecasting. In
Alaska, the runoff decreased from >4000 mm to <2000 mm in
the 1950s. Due to these extreme changes, the SARIMA55 model
was more capable of runoff forecasting in this state. In Texas,
amount of runoff in 2011 was 12.30 mm. This value was the
2015 Royal Meteorological Society

minimum amount of runoff in the entire statistical period. However, other models had a RE >30% for this state. From the other
peak values forecasted by the SARIMA models it can be seen
that runoffs in Connecticut, Minnesota, Montana, New York and
Vermont were the maximum in the last 111 years. In addition, the
accuracy of the models is not acceptable in New Jersey, North
Dakota and Ohio during the last century.
5.2.

Average runoff forecasting for all over the United States

The time series related to the annual runoff of each state show
that due to climatic changes the runoff could not be forecasted for
more than 1 year with a good accuracy for each state. However,
in some situations that need a comprehensive study, for example,
for flood control and use of runoff caused by rainfall, it is required
to forecast with a time horizon longer than 1 year.
While the average annual runoff of all the states was considered
as the runoff of the United States, because of neutralization
of drastic climatic changes and reduction in the peak points,
Meteorol. Appl. (2015)

M. Valipour

Figure 3. Performance of ARIMA and SARIMA models for runoff forecasting in each US state.
Table 2. The best structures of each model for runoff forecasting
(20012011) in all US states.
Model
ARIMA
SARIMA2
SARIMA4
SARIMA5
SARIMA10
SARIMA20
SARIMA25
SARIMA50

Structure

R2

MBE (mm)

(5,1,3)
(4,1,4)(1,0,1)
(3,1,4)(1,0,1)
(3,1,3)(2,1,1)
(3,1,3)(2,0,2)
(0,1,4)(1,0,1)
(1,1,4)(1,0,1)
(1,1,3)(1,0,1)

0.86
0.86
0.86
0.87
0.87
0.91
0.90
0.88

4.06
1.72
2.90
8.09
1.86
1.29
4.39
2.49

runoff was forecasted for 11 years ahead (Table 2). According

to Table 2, all the ARIMA and SARIMA models had a good
forecasting due to the trend in average runoff data; however, the
SARIMA20 model with the maximum R2 and minimum MBE
was more capable of long-term runoff forecasting. Therefore,
while intensity of changes is mild, the forecasting horizon can
be increased to more than 1 year in each region.

Figure 4 shows the performance of the SARIMA20 model for

runoff forecasting in the United States. Since in 2004 and 2008,
amounts of observed runoff were closest to the average runoff
of all the years (235.30 mm), accuracy of the SARIMA20 model
was better in these 2 years than other forecasted years.
Based on the forecast results obtained for each state and for the
United States as a whole it can be claimed that, if 1901 is considered as a benchmark, after each 20 years or almost a quarter
century, there is a trend in the observed runoff data in the United
States. The author claims can be investigated by the Earth move
data and other usable information related to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), in a separate study.

6.

Recommendation

Although the results show that the obtained accuracy is currently acceptable (the RE of the SARIMA models for all the
states is <5% and R2 = 0.91 for the runoff estimation in the
United States), a hybrid forecasting that combines nonlinear
and machine-learning approaches can improve or enhance

Figure 4. Performance of the SARIMA20 model in long-term runoff forecasting for the United States. (a) Observed and forecasted runoff versus
time and (b) forecasted runoff versus observed runoff.
2015 Royal Meteorological Society

Meteorol. Appl. (2015)

Runoff forecasting using SARIMA

the accuracy of the ARIMA and SARIMA models. Previous

research on water resources management showed that most of
the hybrid techniques have been applied only for the ARIMA
model, and the SARIMA model has not been considered (Zhang
et al., 2011). Therefore, a study of the SARIMA hybrid model
(instead of ARIMA hybrid model) has been recommended as
continuation of current research to improve the accuracy of the
SARIMA model.
7.

Conclusions

In this study, the ability of the SARIMA and ARIMA models

was evaluated for long-term runoff forecasting. Results obtained
show that SARIMA models forecast the annual runoff better
than the ARIMA models. The SARIMA models were very sensitive to the periodic term. By choosing an appropriate periodic term, SARIMA models were able to forecast the annual
runoff for each US state with an RE <5%. However, the performance of SARIMA models is sharply declined if a correct
periodic term is not used because of underestimation or overestimation in the calibration stage. As a rule but not always, if
there were moderate weather changes and a seasonal trend in
the calibration data, SARIMA2 and SARIMA5 were superior
models. If there were drastic and unrepeatable changes in the
calibration data, SARIMA55 was the superior model and in other
cases, SARIMA22 and SARIMA11 were two reliable models for
annual runoff forecasting. Also, in those regions where the peak
points in the calibration dataset are close to the average of all
data, annual runoff data can be forecast for one decade ahead.
An important result of this work is the identification of the
annual runoff trend using the periodic term of the Box-Jenkins
models (ARMA, ARIMA, SARMA and SARIMA). However
there are several tests available for the evaluation of decreasing
or increasing trends in the time series, for example, regression
analysis, MannKendall test. The results suggest a successful
application of the periodic term for detection of a non-monotonic
trend without applying the statistical tests.

References
Anderson M, Chen Z, Kavvas M, Feldman A. 2002. Coupling
HEC-HMS with atmospheric models for prediction of watershed
runoff. J. Hydrol. Eng. 7(4): 312318.
Banihabib ME, Valipour M, Behbahani SMR. 2012. Comparison of
autoregressive static and artificial dynamic neural network for the
forecasting of monthly inflow of Dez reservoir. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 13: 114. http://jest.srbiau.ac.ir/?_action=articleInfo&article=84
(accessed 15 February 2012).
Dong SH, Zhou HC, Xu HJ. 2004. A forecast model of hydrologic single
element medium and long-period based on rough set theory. Water
Resour. Manage. 18(5): 483495.
Habib E, Aduvala AV, Meselhe EA. 2007. Effect of radar-rainfall
errors on rainfall-runoff modeling. World Environmental and Water
Resources Congress, 1519 May 2007, Tampa, FL, DOI: 10.1061/
40927(243)285.
Mahdizadeh Khasraghi M, Gholami Sefidkouhi MA, Valipour M.
2014. Simulation of open- and closed-end border irrigation
systems using SIRMOD. Arch. Agron. Soil Sci. DOI: 10.1080/
03650340.2014.981163 (in press).
Patry G, Marino M. 1984a. Two-stage urban runoff forecast model.
J. Water Resour. Plann. Manage. 110(4): 479496.

2015 Royal Meteorological Society

Patry G, Marino M. 1984b. Sensitivity and application of difference

equation models to real-time urban runoff forecasting. J. Hydrol.
72(12): 5766.
Patry G, Marino M. 1984c. Parameter identification of time-varying
noisy difference equations for real-time urban runoff forecasting.
J. Hydrol. 72(12): 2555.
Psilovikos A, Elhag M. 2013. Forecasting of remotely sensed Daily
evapotranspiration data over Nile Delta region. Egypt. Water Resour.
Manage. 27(12): 41154130.
Rahimi S, Gholami Sefidkouhi MA, Raeini-Sarjaz M, Valipour M.
2014. Estimation of actual evapotranspiration by using MODIS
images (a case study: Tajan catchment). Arch. Agron. Soil Sci. DOI:
10.1080/03650340.2014.944904 (in press).
Schar C, Vasilina L, Dirren S. 2004. Seasonal runoff forecasting
using precipitation from meteorological data assimilation systems.
J. Hydrometeorol. 5: 959973.
Valipour M. 2012a. Critical areas of Iran for agriculture water management according to the annual rainfall. Eur. J. Sci. Res. 84(4):
600608.
Valipour M. 2012b. Number of required observation data for rainfall
forecasting according to the climate conditions. Am. J. Sci. Res. 74:
7986.
Valipour M. 2012c. Ability of Box-Jenkins models to estimate of reference potential evapotranspiration (a case study: Mehrabad Synoptic
Station, Tehran, Iran). IOSR J. Agric. Veter. Sci. 1(5): 111.
Valipour M. 2013a. Use of surface water supply index to assessing of water resources management in Colorado and Oregon, US.
Adv. Agric. Sci. Eng. Res. 3(2): 631640. http://ejournal.sedinst.com/
index.php/agser/article/view/247 (accessed 11 February 2013).
Valipour M. 2013b. Estimation of surface water supply index using
snow water equivalent. Adv. Agric. Sci. Eng. Res. 3(1): 587602.
http://ejournal.sedinst.com/index.php/agser/article/view/244
(accessed 25 January 2013).
Valipour M. 2014a. Application of new mass transfer formulae for
computation of evapotranspiration. J. Appl. Water Eng. Res. 2(1):
3346.
Valipour M. 2014b. A comprehensive study on irrigation management
in Asia and Oceania. Arch. Agron. Soil Sci. DOI: 10.1080/03650340.
2014.986471 (in press).
Valipour M. 2014c. Future of agricultural water management in
Africa. Arch. Agron. Soil Sci. DOI: 10.1080/03650340.2014.961
433 (in press).
Valipour M. 2015. Importance of solar radiation, temperature, relative
humidity, and wind speed for calculation of reference evapotranspiration. Arch. Agron. Soil Sci. 61(2): 239255.
Valipour M, Banihabib ME, Behbahani SMR. 2012a. Monthly inflow
forecasting using autoregressive artificial neural network. J. Appl. Sci.
12(20): 21392147.
Valipour M, Banihabib ME, Behbahani SMR. 2012b. Parameters estimate of autoregressive moving average and autoregressive integrated moving average models and compare their ability for inflow
forecasting. J. Math. Stat. 8(3): 330338.
Valipour M, Banihabib ME, Behbahani SMR. 2013. Comparison of
the ARMA, ARIMA, and the autoregressive artificial neural network
models in forecasting the monthly inflow of Dez dam reservoir.
J. Hydrol. 476: 433441.
Valipour M, Eslamian S. 2014. Analysis of potential evapotranspiration
using 11 modified temperature-based models. Int. J. Hydro. Sci. Technol. (in press).
Valipour M, Ziatabar Ahmadi M, Raeini-Sarjaz M, Gholami Sefidkouhi
MA, Shahnazari A, Fazlola R, et al. 2014. Agricultural water management in the world during past half century. Arch. Agron. Soil Sci. DOI:
10.1080/03650340.2014.944903 (in press).
Wang X, Liu T, Li C, Zhu Z, Zhang S, Melesse AM. 2011. Development
of a modified rational equation for arid-region runoff estimation.
World Environmental and Water Resources Congress, 2226 May
2011, Palm Springs, CA, DOI: 10.1061/41173(414)490.
Zhang Q, Wang BD, He B, Peng Y, Ren ML. 2011. Singular spectrum
analysis and ARIMA hybrid model for annual runoff forecasting.
Water Resour. Manage. 25(11): 26832703.

Meteorol. Appl. (2015)