2019
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2019.124032
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Beyond model metrics: The perils of calibrating hydrologic models

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
12
0
1

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 38 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 27 publications
0
12
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…A calibração do modelo é o processo de ajuste dos melhores valores da variável resposta estimados pelo modelo aos dados observados, a fim de minimizar as diferenças entre as variáveis estimadas e observadas (Blainski et al, 2017;Pereira et al, 2016;Sarrazin et al, 2016;Bhattacharjee et al, 2019;Triana et al, 2019;Tegegne et al, 2019). Este procedimento foi realizado de maneira semiautomática, com a utilização do software SWAT: Calibration and Uncertainty Programs (SWAT-CUP).…”
Section: Análise De Sensibilidade Calibração E Validação Do Modelounclassified
“…A calibração do modelo é o processo de ajuste dos melhores valores da variável resposta estimados pelo modelo aos dados observados, a fim de minimizar as diferenças entre as variáveis estimadas e observadas (Blainski et al, 2017;Pereira et al, 2016;Sarrazin et al, 2016;Bhattacharjee et al, 2019;Triana et al, 2019;Tegegne et al, 2019). Este procedimento foi realizado de maneira semiautomática, com a utilização do software SWAT: Calibration and Uncertainty Programs (SWAT-CUP).…”
Section: Análise De Sensibilidade Calibração E Validação Do Modelounclassified
“…In large basins, the water resources management and planning are carried out monthly, and the observed hydrological data, which are then more readily available, are used for calibrating and validating hydrological models [55]. The first two years were used as a warm-up period to reduce the uncertainties regarding the initial conditions of the surface domain [60]. The period from January 2002 to December 2010 was used for calibration.…”
Section: Calibration and Validation Of The Swat Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Calibration of the SWATmf model was conducted using a two-step process [36]: (1) calibration of the surface domain using daily streamflow data at three gauging stations and pool elevation in the Fort Cobb reservoir, and (2) calibration of the groundwater domain using three continuous piezometric heads on a daily basis. In both steps, metrics as well as the three-dimensional groundwater level representation were used to assess the infiltration fluxes at the boundary condition between the two domains.…”
Section: Swatmf Calibrationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, short-term fluctuations (interannual) were not properly represented by the model. This was explained as the smoothing effect of recharge patterns occurring across the watershed that resulted from the spatial discretization of clustered, spatially disconnected HRUs derived from ArcSWAT [36]. HRUs are created based on unique combinations of soil, land use, and topography that can result in spatially disconnected areas clustered to a single SWAT process representation.…”
Section: Model Calibrationmentioning
confidence: 99%