Getting the right answers for the right reasons: Linking measurements, analyses, and models to advance the science of hydrology

Water Resources Research

Volumn 42, Issue 3, 2006, Pages

  Kirchner, James W ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CATCHMENTS; COMPUTER NETWORKS; HYDROLOGY; LINEAR EQUATIONS; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; NONLINEAR EQUATIONS;

DATA NETWORKS; HYDROLOGIC MEASUREMENTS; HYDROLOGIC PROCESSES; MATHEMATICAL MARIONETTES;

WATER RESOURCES;

CATCHMENTS; COMPUTER NETWORKS; HYDROLOGY; LINEAR EQUATIONS; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; NONLINEAR EQUATIONS; WATER RESOURCES;

EID: 33646532065     PISSN: 00431397     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1029/2005WR004362     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Beven, K. (2002), Towards a coherent philosophy for modelling the environment, Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A, 458, 2465-2484.
2. Beven, K. J., and A. M. Binley (1992), The future of distributed models: Model calibration and predictive uncertainty, Hydrol. Processes, 6, 279-298.
3. Butts, M. B., J. T. Payne, M. Kristensen, and H. Madsen (2004), An evaluation of the impact of model structure on hydrological modelling uncertainty for streamflow simulation, J. Hydrol., 298, 242-266.
4. Committee on Earth Gravity from Space (1997), Satellite Gravity and the Geosphere, 126 pp., Natl. Acad. Press, Washington, D. C.
5. Grayson, R. B., I. D. Moore, and T. A. McMahon (1992), Physically based hydrologic modeling: 2. Is the concept realistic?, Water Resour. Res., 28, 2659-2666.
6. Hooper, R. P., A. Stone, N. Christophersen, E. de Grosbois, and H. M. Seip (1988), Assessing the Birkenes model of stream acidification using a multisignal calibration methodology, Water Resour. Res., 24, 1308-1316.
7. Hornberger, G. M., and E. W. Boyer (1995), Recent advances in watershed modeling, U.S. Natl. Rep. Int. Union Geod. Geophys. 1991-1994, Rev. Geophys., 33, 949-957.
8. Jakeman, A. J., and G. M. Hornberger (1993), How much complexity is warranted in a rainfall-runoff model?, Water Resour. Res., 29, 2637-2649.
9. Kirchner, J. W. (2003), A double paradox in catchment hydrology and geochemistry, Hydrol. Processes, 17, 871-874.
10. Kirchner, J. W., R. P. Hooper, C. Kendall, C. Neal, and G. Leavesley (1996), Testing and validating environmental models, Sci. Total Environ., 183, 33-47.
11. Kirchner, J. W., X. Feng, and C. Neal (2000), Fractal stream chemistry and its implications for contaminant transport in catchments, Nature, 403, 524-527.
12. Kirchner, J. W., X. Feng, and C. Neal (2001), Catchment-scale advection and dispersion as a mechanism for fractal scaling in stream tracer concentrations, J. Hydrol., 254, 81-100.
13. Kirchner, J. W., X. H. Feng, C. Neal, and A. J. Robson (2004), The fine structure of water-quality dynamics: The (high-frequency) wave of the future, Hydrol. Processes, 18, 1353-1359.
14. Klemes, V. (1986), Dilettantism in hydrology: Transition or destiny?, Water Resour. Res., 22, S177-S188.
15. Klemes, V. (1988), A hydrological perspective, J. Hydrol., 100, 3-28.
16. Seibert, J. (2003), Reliability of model predictions outside calibration conditions, Nord Hydrol., 34, 477-492.
17. Wagener, T. (2003), Evaluation of catchment models, Hydrol. Processes, 17, 3375-3378.
18. Wittenberg, H. (1999), Baseflow recession and recharge as nonlinear storage processes, Hydrol. Processes, 13, 715-726.
19. Young, P. (2003), Top-down and data-based mechanistic modelling of rainfall-flow dynamics at the catchment scale, Hydrol. Processes, 17, 2195-2217.