A physically based distributed karst hydrological model (QMG model-V1.0) for flood simulations

Li, Ji; Yuan, Daoxian; Zhang, Fuxi; Liu, Jiao; Ma, Mingguo

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-6581-2022

Articles | Volume 15, issue 17

https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-6581-2022

© Author(s) 2022. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-6581-2022

© Author(s) 2022. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 15, issue 17

Model description paper

|

01 Sep 2022

Model description paper |

| 01 Sep 2022

A physically based distributed karst hydrological model (QMG model-V1.0) for flood simulations

Ji Li, Daoxian Yuan, Fuxi Zhang, Jiao Liu, and Mingguo Ma

Download

Final revised paper (published on 01 Sep 2022)
Preprint (discussion started on 31 Aug 2021)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on gmd-2021-120', Anonymous Referee #1, 20 Sep 2021

The paper concerns a topic consistent with the aim of the GMD journal, and I really appreciate the huge work made by the authors. The presented analysis and model application could be potentially useful in karst basins. In this study, a karst hydrological model, i.e., the QMG model-V1.0 was developed for karst floods simulation and forecasting. The model itself is a valuable improvement, and what interested me was the applicability of the model in karst areas, so I went through the entire process of modeling and validating the model myself (https://zenodo.org/deposit?page=1&size=20), and the model simulation results were satisfactory. I think the subsequent research should focus on the validation study of the model in more karst areas to prove its general applicability in karst hydrological forecasting. However, there are few drawbacks affect the manuscript and have to be addressed before the paper can be published in GMD.

Specific comments

1) English needs modification

I found several incorrect words, grammar and unclear sentences, make it very difficult to understand the analysis carried out and the results obtained. The authors need to carefully correct the language errors in the whole text.

2) More information about the potential of this new model, ie.e., the QMG model-V1.0 for application in karst areas needs to be added in the Introduction part, especially the advantages and disadvantages compared to current numerical karst groundwater models.

3) In the Methodology part, the section 3.1 Hydrological model, this title is inappropriate here, as it obviously also includes the Parameter Optimization in Section 3.2 and Model Setting in 3.4. Suggest changing it to a model framework and algorithm.

4) In section 3.3 Uncertainty Analysis, it is not clear how to analyze uncertainty in input data and model structure for this new QMG model-V1.0.

Other minor comments

1) All tables should be set to three-line tables.

2) The right side of Figure 3 seems to be a photograph, please explain the necessity of its existence.

3) Each variable in Figure 5 needs to be clearly labeled as to which parameter it refers to.

4) The horizontal axis in Figure 7 represents the date, but the interval is not one-to-one with the marked time, please check that.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2021-120-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Ji Li, 08 Oct 2021
  
  A point-by-point reply to the comments
  Anonymous Referee #1, 20 Sep 2021
  The paper concerns a topic consistent with the aim of the GMD journal, and I really appreciate the huge work made by the authors. The presented analysis and model application could be potentially useful in karst basins. In this study, a karst hydrological model, i.e., the QMG model-V1.0 was developed for karst floods simulation and forecasting. The model itself is a valuable improvement, and what interested me was the applicability of the model in karst areas, so I went through the entire process of modeling and validating the model myself (https://zenodo.org/deposit?page=1&size=20), and the model simulation results were satisfactory. I think the subsequent research should focus on the validation study of the model in more karst areas to prove its general applicability in karst hydrological forecasting. However, there are few drawbacks affect the manuscript and have to be addressed before the paper can be published in GMD.
  Specific comments
  1) English needs modification
  I found several incorrect words, grammar and unclear sentences, make it very difficult to understand the analysis carried out and the results obtained. The authors need to carefully correct the language errors in the whole text.
  2) More information about the potential of this new model, ie.e., the QMG model-V1.0 for application in karst areas needs to be added in the Introduction part, especially the advantages and disadvantages compared to current numerical karst groundwater models.
  3) In the Methodology part, the section 3.1 Hydrological model, this title is inappropriate here, as it obviously also includes the Parameter Optimization in Section 3.2 and Model Setting in 3.4. Suggest changing it to a model framework and algorithm.
  4) In section 3.3 Uncertainty Analysis, it is not clear how to analyze uncertainty in input data and model structure for this new QMG model-V1.0.
  Other minor comments
  1) All tables should be set to three-line tables.
  2) The right side of Figure 3 seems to be a photograph, please explain the necessity of its existence.
  3) Each variable in Figure 5 needs to be clearly labeled as to which parameter it refers to.
  4) The horizontal axis in Figure 7 represents the date, but the interval is not one-to-one with the marked time, please check that.
  General comment:
  The paper concerns a topic consistent with the aim of the GMD journal, and I really appreciate the huge work made by the authors. The presented analysis and model application could be potentially useful in karst basins. In this study, a karst hydrological model, i.e., the QMG model-V1.0 was developed for karst floods simulation and forecasting. The model itself is a valuable improvement, and what interested me was the applicability of the model in karst areas, so I went through the entire process of modeling and validating the model myself (https://zenodo.org/deposit?page=1&size=20), and the model simulation results were satisfactory. I think the subsequent research should focus on the validation study of the model in more karst areas to prove its general applicability in karst hydrological forecasting. However, there are few drawbacks affect the manuscript and have to be addressed before the paper can be published in GMD.
  Response:
  We greatly appreciate the reviewer's comments. The reviewer confirmed the innovation and application value of this study and pointed out the potential of the model (QMG model-V1.0) proposed in karst areas, and suggested that subsequent studies should focus on applying this new model to more karst areas to test its general applicability in karst floods forecasting.
  The next step of our research is indeed focused on model validation, for which we will build this model (QMG model-V1.0) for flood simulation and forecasting in more karst areas, and improve the model's functions and algorithms to provide its applicability and accuracy based on the application effects.
  The following is our point-by-point response to specific comments.
  Specific Comment
  1) English needs modification
  I found several incorrect words, grammar and unclear sentences, make it very difficult to understand the analysis carried out and the results obtained. The authors need to carefully correct the language errors in the whole text.
  Response:
  We have carefully revised the language errors in the full text, including incorrect words, grammar and unclear sentences, and asked a professional English editing company (Charlesworth Advanced ) to help fix the language problems in the manuscript.
  2) More information about the potential of this new model, ie.e., the QMG model-V1.0 for application in karst areas needs to be added in the Introduction part, especially the advantages and disadvantages compared to current numerical karst groundwater models.
  Response:
  More information about the advantages of the QMG model-V1.0 compared with other karst groundwater models have been added in the revised Introduction (Lines 103-115).
  3) In the Methodology part, the section 3.1 Hydrological model, this title is inappropriate here, as it obviously also includes the Parameter Optimization in Section 3.2 and Model Setting in 3.4. Suggest changing it to a model framework and algorithm.
  Response:
  This advice is very pertinent. The title of section 3.1 has been replaced by “Hydrological model framework and algorithms” accordingly (Lines 205).
  4) In section 3.3 Uncertainty Analysis, it is not clear how to analyze uncertainty in input data and model structure for this new QMG model-V1.0.
  Response:
  Uncertainty Analysis of input data and model structure have been added in the revised section 3.3 (Lines 428-446).
  Other minor comments
  1) All tables should be set to three-line tables.
  Response:
  The tables have been seted to three-line tables accordingly (Lines 938-943).
  2) The right side of Figure 3 seems to be a photograph, please explain the necessity of its existence.
  Response:
  It is a three-dimensional spatial model of KHRUs established in the laboratory to visually reflect the storage and movement of water in the karst water-bearing medium with each spatial anisotropy, and to provide technical support for the establishment of hydrological model. And this description has been added to the revised version (Lines 230-233).
  3) Each variable in Figure 5 needs to be clearly labeled as to which parameter it refers to.
  Response:
  The model parameter referred to by each variable in Figure 5 has already clearly reflected in Table 1 (Lines 938).
  4) The horizontal axis in Figure 7 represents the date, but the interval is not one-to-one with the marked time, please check that.
  Response:
  The horizontal axises in Figure 7 have been revised accordingly (Lines 965-977).
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2021-120-AC1
CC1:
'Comment on gmd-2021-120', Laurent Ailleres, 19 Oct 2021

Dear Author,
Thanks for your contribution and an interesting paper. Although I am not providing a full review, this paper does not fit the special issue under which it appears: The Loop 3D stochastic geological modelling platform – development and applications
This is not a development nor an application of the Loop platform. Please remove your contribution from the Loop special issue.
Thank you and kind regards,
Laurent

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2021-120-CC1
- CC2:
  'Reply on CC1', Ji Li, 25 Oct 2021
  
  Dear Laurent,
  I am JI LI. Thank you for the information, I may have chosen the wrong special issue at the beginning of the submission, as you say, this is not a development nor an application of the Loop platform, but I would like to know that the manuscript is currently in the GMD open discussions stage and that the reviewers have given their comments and we have responded to them. In this case, how can I remove the manuscript information from this special issue? Does the removal mean that I have to resubmit the paper? Please let me know? Thanks.
  JI LI
  Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2021-120-CC2
  - CC3: 'Reply on CC2', Laurent Ailleres, 26 Oct 2021
    
    Dear JI LI,
    I would contact your EC (Editor) who should be able to address the problem. I do hope you do not have to re-submit.
    Thank you and kind regards,
    Laurent
    
    Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2021-120-CC3
    
    CC4: 'Reply on CC3', Ji Li, 26 Oct 2021
    
    Dear Laurent,
    I am JI LI. Thank you very much for your timely reply to let me know this information. Of course, it would be best if I did not have to resubmit it. I hope so. Thank you very much for your kind help. Wish you all the best.
    Thank you and kind regards,
    JI LI
    
    Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2021-120-CC4
CC5:
'Comment on gmd-2021-120', Daan Stalenburg, 30 Oct 2021

Dear authors,
This review was prepared as part of graduate program Earth & Environment (course Integrated Topics in Earth & Environment) at Wageningen University, and has been produced under supervision of dr Ryan Teuling. The review has been posted because of its potential usefulness to the authors and editor. Although it has the format of a regular review as was requested by the course, this review was not solicited by the journal, and should be seen as a regular comment. We leave it up to the author’s and editor which points will be addressed.
with kind regards,
Daan Stalenburg

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2021-120-CC5
- CC6: 'Reply on CC5', Ji Li, 30 Oct 2021
  
  Dear Stalenburg,
  Thank you very much for your comments. Our article also belongs to the research category of the earth and the environment. Specifically, it belongs to the karst hydrological forecast in the field of geography. The karst groundwater model proposed in the article and its simulation of the flood process of underground rivers can provide key technology and method for flood control ,management, and mitigation in karst areas. At the same time, it can also provide reference for environmental issues such as the evaluation and protection of karst water resources, and has potential application reference value for you to study the environmental protection of the earth and the environment, especially in karst areas.
  yours
  JI LI
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2021-120-CC6
CC7:
'Comment on gmd-2021-120', Eva van Hofslot, 02 Nov 2021

Dear Authors,
This review was prepared as part of graduate program Earth & Environment (course Integrated Topics in Earth & Environment) at Wageningen University, and has been produced under supervision of dr Ryan Teuling. The review has been posted because of its potential usefulness to the authors and editor. Although it has the format of a regular review as was requested by the course, this review was not solicited by the journal, and should be seen as a regular comment. We leave it up to the author’s and editor which points will be addressed.
Kind regards,
Eva van Hofslot

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2021-120-CC7
- CC8: 'Reply on CC7', Ji Li, 03 Nov 2021
  
  Dear Hofslot，
  Thank you very much for your comments. And I received the same comment from your classmate Stalenburg two days ago. Here I send the same reply to you, and I hope you are satisfied with this response. Our article also belongs to the research category of the earth and the environment. Specifically, it belongs to the karst hydrological forecast in the field of geography. The karst groundwater model proposed in the article and its simulation of the flood process of underground rivers can provide key technology and method for flood control ,management, and mitigation in karst areas. At the same time, it can also provide reference for environmental issues such as the evaluation and protection of karst water resources, and has potential application reference value for you to study the environmental protection of the earth and the environment, especially in karst areas.
  yours
  JI LI
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2021-120-CC8
RC2:
'Comment on gmd-2021-120', Anonymous Referee #2, 19 Feb 2022

The paper deals with implementation of a physically-based distributed karst hydrological model for flood simulations. The manuscript has several deficiencies, in part depending upon the English language and in part by problems with the scientific content.

I have a number of considerations and suggestions (presented in this comment, and in the attached file as well).

In general, the English language seems to me not satisfying the international standards for publication in several points, and needs some deep revision. In particular, I pointed out in the attached file some parts where the English was unclear to me.

Authors are probably not very familiar with karst literature and terminology. Since they are proposing a model for floods in karst, the karst literature cannot be not taken into account. From the beginning, it is stated that the works regards “karst though valley”. This is not a term familiar to me, and I do not have seen it used in the karst literature. Thus, its meaning should be clearly defined. In addition, references to the main works and textbooks as concerns karst landforms and morphology should be added. Below you will find some suggestions at this regard.

As regards the main topic of the article, that is floods, karst settings are typically characterized by flash floods, due to the lack or scarcity of water at the surface during most of the year. This is never mentioned in the manuscript, but should deserve some mention, also to cite similar examples in other karst areas worldwide. For instance, have a look at the paper by Gutierrez et al. (2014) and the abundant references about floods in karst (Parise, 2003; Bonacci et al., 2006; Jourde et al., 2007, 2014; Martinotti et al., 2017).

Also when dealing with sinkholes, no reference to the main classification of sinkholes is provided. All this indicate a quite poor knowledge of karst, which should be addresses for an article submitted to international journals.

Suggested references for karst (general textbooks and specific articles for floods and hazards in karst):

Bonacci, O., Ljubenkov, I., Roje-Bonacci, T., 2006. Karst flash floods: an example from the Dinaric karst Croatia. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 6, 195–203.

Ford, D.C.,Williams, P., 2007. Karst Hydrogeology and Geomorphology.Wiley, Chichester, 562 pp..

Gutierrez, F., 2010. Hazards associated with karst. In: Alcantara, I. & A. Goudie (Eds.), Geomorphological Hazards and Disaster Prevention. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 161–175.

Gutierrez F., Parise M., De Waele J. & Jourde H., 2014, A review on natural and human-induced geohazards and impacts in karst. Earth Science Reviews, vol. 138, p. 61-88.

Jourde, H., Roesch, A., Guinot, V., Bailly-Comte, V., 2007. Dynamics and contribution of karst groundwater to surface flow during Mediterranean flood. Environ. Geol. 51 (5), 725–730.

Jourde, H., Lafare, A., Mazzilli, N., Belaud, G., Neppel, L., Doerfliger, N., Cernesson, F., 2014. Flash flood mitigation as a positive consequence of anthropogenic forcings on the groundwater resource in a karst catchment. Environ. Earth Sci. 71, 573–583.

Martinotti M.E., Pisano L., Marchesini I., Rossi M., Peruccacci S., Brunetti M.T., Melillo M., Amoruso G., Loiacono P., Vennari C., Vessia G., Trabace M., Parise M., & Guzzetti F., 2017, Landslides, floods and sinkholes in a karst environment: the 1–6 September 2014 Gargano event, southern Italy. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, vol. 17, p. 467-480.

Palmer, A.N., 2007. Cave Geology. Cave Books, Dayton, 454 pp..

Palmer, A.N., 2010. Understanding the hydrology of karst. Geol. Croat. 63, 143–148.

Parise, M., 2003. Flood history in the karst environment of Castellana-Grotte (Apulia, southern Italy). Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 3 (6), 593–604.

Parise, M., 2010, Hazards in karst, Proceedings Int. Conf. “Sustainability of the karst environment. Dinaric karst and other karst regions”, IHP-Unesco, Series on Groundwater, 2, 155-162.

Parise M., Ravbar N., Å½ivanovic V., Mikszewski A., Kresic N., Mádl-Szo Ìnyi J. & Kukuric N., 2015, Hazards in Karst and Managing Water Resources Quality. Chapter 17 in: Z. Stevanovic (ed.), Karst Aquifers – Characterization and Engineering. Professional Practice in Earth Sciences, Springer, pp. 601-687.

White, W.B., 1988. Geomorphology and Hydrology of Karst Terrains. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 464 pp.

White, W.B., 2002. Karst hydrology: recent developments and open questions. Eng. Geol. 65, 85–105.

Williams, P.W., 2008. The role of the epikarst in karst and cave hydrogeology: a review. Int. J. Speleol. 37, 1–10.

Zhou W, Beck BF (2011) Engineering issues on karst. In: P. van Beynen (Ed), Karst Management. Springer, Dordrecht, 9-45.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2021-120-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Ji Li, 22 Feb 2022
  
  Dear reviewer:
  We greatly appreciate the reviewer's comments. The reviewer point out that there are two major deficiencies in this manuscript, in part depending upon the English language errors and in part by the scientific content problems. We have carefully revised the problems pointed out by the reviewer. Our point-by-point response to specific comments can be found in the supplement (a point-by-point reply to the comments, a marked-up manuscript and the final paper). Many thanks for helping to review the manuscript and best wishes!
  JI LI
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2021-120-AC2

Peer review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision | EF: Editorial file upload

AR by Ji Li on behalf of the Authors (22 Feb 2022) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (28 Feb 2022) by Bethanna Jackson

AR by Ji Li on behalf of the Authors (08 Mar 2022) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (13 Apr 2022) by Bethanna Jackson

RR by Anonymous Referee #3 (19 Apr 2022)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

General comments
Review for -“A physically-based distributed karst hydrological model (QMG model-V1.0) for flood simulations” by Ji Li et.
It is well known that numerical simulation of karst groundwater is very difficult. Because of the complex karst basin subsurface conditions and spatially anisotropic karst water-bearing medias, it is a great challenge to quantitatively describe the transport and transformation patterns of karst groundwater. This study proposed a distributed hydrological model- QMG model for flood simulation and prediction in karst regions. This QMG model is a karst groundwater numerical model with potential application value, and the reasonable flood simulation results proved the accuracy and applicability of the model. The main innovation of this study is that a new karst model (QMG model-V1.0) is proposed and good flood simulation results are obtained. In addition, I am interested in the fact that the code of this model is very simple and easy to operate. Through my own modeling test, I used the modeling data in the case provided by the author to complete the construction and trial operation of the QMG model, and obtained satisfactory flood simulation results, which proved the effectiveness of the model. However,there are some language and writing problems that hinder readability and fluency of this paper, and I think the current version needs some minor revisions before it can be published in the GMD journal.
Specific comments
1) Language and writing problems
There are some English language problems in the current manuscript, including wrong words, grammar and inappropriate technical terms. For instance, “forecasting” is used many times in the paper, and I think the potential use of this new QMG model is better written as a “prediction” based on the simulation results of this study. It is suggested that the authors find a hydrologist who is a native English speaker to help revise the language and writing problems of the whole paper.
2) Abstract
It is suggested to add some technical indexes to evaluate the performance of the new model in the abstract, so as to better reflect the effect of the QMG model in karst flood simulations.
3) Keywords
“Simulation and forecasting of karst floods” should be replaced by “Simulation and prediction of karst floods”.
4) Introduction
I read through the whole text and found that the latest literature cited by the authors is only from 2021. In the last two years 2020-2022 many hydrologists have also published some important literature on theoretical development and application of hydrological models in karst areas, and I suggest the authors to add several representative ones to the Introduction and the References lists. For instance,
Masciopinto, C., Passarella, G., Caputo, M. C., Masciale, R, & Carlo, L. D.. (2021). Hydrogeological models of water flow and pollutant transport in karstic and fractured reservoirs. Water Resources Research, 57.
Zhang, H.. (2021). Characterization of a multi-layer karst aquifer through analysis of tidal fluctuation. Journal of Hydrology, 601, 126677.
Gautama, R.S., Notosiswoyo, S., Zen, M. T., & Kusumayudha, S. B.. (2021). Mathematical model of fractal conduits flow mechanics in the gunungsewu karst area, yogyakarta special region, indonesia. International Journal of Hydrology Science and Technology, 1(1), 1.
Y Chang, Hartmann, A., Liu, L., Jiang, G., & Wu, J.. (2021). Identifying more realistic model structures by electrical conductivity observations of the karst spring. Water Resources Research.
5) Study area and data
“2.3 data” should be replaced by “2.3 Modeling Data”. Considering that the audience of the article may not be hydrology professionals, it is recommended that the author try to put himself in the position of a lay reader when writing, so as to ensure that the written paper can be easily read and understood.
6) Methodology
The parentheses in formula 1 are not formatted properly and need to be rewritten.
“3.1.2 Runoff generation” should be replaced by “3.1.2 Runoff generation algorithms”.
“3.1.3 Channel routing and confluence” should be replaced by “3.1.3 Confluence algorithms”.
7) Results and discussion
It is recommended to write these two parts separately, means 4 Results and 5 Discussion.

Hide

RR by Yuanzhi Yao (19 Apr 2022)

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (05 May 2022)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

The paper “A physically-based distributed karst hydrological model (QMG model-V1.0) for flood simulations” by Ji Li et. presents a new numerical model-the QMG model for karst basins.

I have reviewed this paper once before, and the authors have satisfactorily responded to and addressed the issues I mentioned, and I think the current version of the manuscript is greatly improved and worthy of publication in this journal. Compared with the current commonly used karst groundwater models, this QMG model has the advantage of relatively simple double-layer structures and parameters, making it possible to model with a smaller data requirement in karst areas. For instance, the MODFLOW-CFP needs more distribution data of the karst underground conduit system. This QMG model can be extended to more karst areas to verify its general applicability in karst flood simulation and prediction. The innovation of this paper is clear, i.e., it proposes a hydrological model- QMG model-V1.0 applicable to karst areas, and the optimization method of model parameters-the improved particle swarm algorithm (IPSO) offered a better flood simulation effects than those with the initial model parameters, indicating the applicability of this IPSO method. In addition, the theory research on hydrological model also applies to the scope of the GMD journal. All in all, I think this paper is suitable for publication in this journal, but some minor errors need to be fixed beforehand.
Specific comments
1. Technical term
Some terminologies in the text may be inappropriate or non-standard that need to be corrected. For example, the flood ‘forecasting’ had better be replaced by ‘prediction’;
“Excess water overflows” should be “excess infiltration runoff”; and “during floods” should be “during flooding”, etc.
2. The specific location of the study area in China should be indicated in Figure 1, and more information on karst distribution and development should be added to the study area and data.
3. Methodology: “3.1 Hydrological model framework and algorithms” has better be replaced by “3.1 Hydrological model”; “4.1 Parameter Sensitivity Results” should be “4.1 Parameter sensitivity results”; “4.2 Parametric Optimization” should be “4.2 Parametric optimization”; and “4.3 Model Validation in Flood Simulations” should be “4.3 Model validation”.
4. Results and discussion should be written separately.
5. Conclusions: it is suggested to list the specific conclusions of this study one by one, so that readers can intuitively discover the main conclusions of this paper.

Hide

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (26 May 2022) by Bethanna Jackson

AR by Ji Li on behalf of the Authors (03 Jun 2022) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (01 Aug 2022) by Bethanna Jackson

AR by Ji Li on behalf of the Authors (01 Aug 2022)

Short summary

A new karst hydrological model (the QMG model) is developed to simulate and predict the floods in karst trough valley basins. Unlike the complex structure and parameters of current karst groundwater models, this model has a simple double-layered structure with few parameters and decreases the demand for modeling data in karst areas. The flood simulation results based on the QMG model of the Qingmuguan karst trough valley basin are satisfactory, indicating the suitability of the model simulation.