Introduction and Synthesis: Why should hydrologists work on a large number of basin data sets?

IAHS-AISH Publication

Volumn , Issue 307, 2006, Pages 1-5

  Andréassian, Vazken ^a   Hall, Alan ^b   Chahinian, Nanée ^c   Schaake, John ^d  

^a Procédés biotechnologiques au service de l'environnement   (France)

^b Water Resources Application Project/GEWEX   (Australia)

^c AGROCAMPUS OUEST   (France)

^d NOAA EARTH SYSTEM RESEARCH LABORATORY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CALIBRATION; CATCHMENTS; CLIMATE CHANGE; MATHEMATICAL INSTRUMENTS; PARAMETER ESTIMATION;

BASIN DATA SETS; HYDROLOGICAL MODELING;

HYDROLOGY;

BASIN; CATCHMENT; DATA SET; HYDROLOGICAL MODELING; HYDROLOGY;

EID: 33845585702     PISSN: 01447815     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (13)

1. Askew, A. (1989) Real-time intercomparison of hydrological models. In: New Directions for Surface Water Modelling (ed. by M. L. Kavvas), (Baltimore, USA). 125-132. IAHS Publ. 181. IAHS Press, Wallingford, UK.
2. Linsley, R. K. (1982) Rainfall-runoff models-an overview. In: Proc. Int. Symp. on Rainfall-Runoff Modelling (ed. by V. P. Singh). 3-22. Water Resources Publications, Littleton, Colorado, USA.
3. Merz, R. & Blöschl, G. (2004) Regionalization of catchment model parameters. J. Hydrol. 287(1-4), 95-123.
4. Mouelhi, S., Michel, C., Perrin, C. & Andréassian, V. (2006) Linking stream flow to rainfall at the annual time step: the Manabe bucket model revisited. J. Hydrol. 328(1-2), 283-296.
5. Oudin, L. (2004) Recherche d'un modèle d'évaporation potentielle pertinent comme entrée d'un modèle pluie-débit global. PhD Thesis, ENGREF, Paris, France.
6. Perrin, C., Michel, C. & Andréassian, V. (2001) Does a large number of parameters enhance model performance? Comparative assessment of common catchment model structures on 429 catchments. J. Hydrol. 242, 275-301.
7. Perrin, C., Michel, C. & Andréassinn, V. (2003) Improvement of a parsimonious model for streamflow simulation. J. Hydrol. 279, 275-284.
8. Vandewiele, G. L., Xu, C. Y. & Win. N. L. (1921) Methodology and comparative study of monthly models in Belgium. China and Burma. J. Hydrol 134, 315-347
9. Wheater, H. S., Jakeman, A. J. & Beven, K. J. (1993) Progress and directions in rainfall-runoff modelling, Chapter 5. In:, Modelling Change in Environmental Systems (ed. by A. I. Jakeman, M. B. Beck & M. J. McAleer), 101-132. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK.
10. WMO (1975) Intercomparison of conceptual models used in operational hydrological forecasting. Operational Hydrology Report no. 7. World Meteorological Organisation, Geneva, Switzerland.
11. WMO (1986) Intercomparison of models of snowmelt runoff. Operational Hydrology Report no. 23. World Meteorological Organisation, Geneva, Switzerland.
12. WMO (1992) Simulated real-time intercomparison of hydrological models. Operational Hydrology Report no. 38, World Meteorological Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
13. Woolhiser, D. A. (1996) Search for physically based runoff model - a hydrologic El Dorado? J. Hydraul. Engng 122(3), 122-129.