2008
DOI: 10.1029/2007wr006716
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A process‐based diagnostic approach to model evaluation: Application to the NWS distributed hydrologic model

Abstract: [1] Distributed hydrological models have the potential to provide improved streamflow forecasts along the entire channel network, while also simulating the spatial dynamics of evapotranspiration, soil moisture content, water quality, soil erosion, and land use change impacts. However, they are perceived as being difficult to parameterize and evaluate, thus translating into significant predictive uncertainty in the model results. Although a priori parameter estimates derived from observable watershed characteri… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

8
496
0

Year Published

2008
2008
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

2
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 500 publications
(504 citation statements)
references
References 48 publications
8
496
0
Order By: Relevance
“…However, the NashSutcliffe score emphasizes errors in high flow, and by itself is a weak metric for model evaluation [Schaefli and Gupta, 2007]. Further work is needed to evaluate model performance with respect to multiple criteria, including assessment of model performance during low-flow periods [Boyle et al, 2000], assessment of model performance in the frequency domain [Parada et al, 2003], and assessment of model performance with respect to ''diagnostic signatures'' that are extracted from the data to explain different hydrological processes in the basin Yilmaz et al, 2008]. This research will help identify extensions to the model framework that are necessary to simulate dominant hydrological processes in basins where the model is applied.…”
Section: Summary and Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, the NashSutcliffe score emphasizes errors in high flow, and by itself is a weak metric for model evaluation [Schaefli and Gupta, 2007]. Further work is needed to evaluate model performance with respect to multiple criteria, including assessment of model performance during low-flow periods [Boyle et al, 2000], assessment of model performance in the frequency domain [Parada et al, 2003], and assessment of model performance with respect to ''diagnostic signatures'' that are extracted from the data to explain different hydrological processes in the basin Yilmaz et al, 2008]. This research will help identify extensions to the model framework that are necessary to simulate dominant hydrological processes in basins where the model is applied.…”
Section: Summary and Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, more sophisticated ways of extracting information from these two sources need to be explored, including use of diagnostically more powerful criteria that have better hydrological relevance Yilmaz et al, 2008;Pokhrel et al, 2009;Herbst et al, 2009;Gupta et al, 2009] and are better able to recognize and exploit spatial and temporal variability in the input activations [van Werkhoven et al, 2008a[van Werkhoven et al, , 2008b. Other strategies for constraining the parameter space could include the use of interior point data [Khu et al, 2008], soft information [Seibert and McDonnell, 2002;Dunn, 1999], and manual calibration within a Tikhonov regularization framework [Tikhonov and Arsenin, 1977;Tonkin and Doherty, 2005].…”
Section: Conclusion and Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These lower-zone parameters influence the lower flows in the hydrograph, although as their values decreases, more water moves through the upper zone, increasing the magnitude of higher flows (Yilmaz et al 2008). The smaller increase in LZSFM and larger reduction in LZFPM for the M-PET calibrations indicate that, on average, lowerzone storages are smaller in the M-PET calibrations compared to the default-PET calibrations.…”
Section: February 2015 S P I E S E T a Lmentioning
confidence: 99%