Discrete parameterization of hydrological models: Evaluating the use of parameter sets libraries over 900 catchments

Water Resources Research

Volumn 44, Issue 8, 2008, Pages

  Perrin, Charles ^a   Andréassian, Vazken ^a   Serna, Claudia Rojas ^b,d   Mathevet, Thibault ^c   Le Moine, Nicolas ^a  

^a CEMAGREF   (France)

^b UNIVERSIDAD AUTÓNOMA METROPOLITANA   (Mexico)

^c EDF R AND D   (France)

^d UNIVERSIDAD AUTÓNOMA METROPOLITANA AZCAPOTZALCO   (Mexico)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CALIBRATION; HYDRAULIC MODELS; RUNOFF; TIME SERIES ANALYSIS; TURBO CODES;

AUSTRALIA; CALIBRATION APPROACHES; COMPLEX MODELING; FLOW-TIME; GLOBAL SEARCH; HYDROLOGICAL MODELLING; LIMITED DATA; LONG TIME; OPTIMIZATION STRATEGIES; OPTIMUM PARAMETER SET; PARAMETER SETS; PARAMETERIZATION METHODS; PRIOR INFORMATION; RAINFALL-RUNOFF MODELLING; UNITED STATES;

CATCHMENTS;

CALIBRATION; CATCHMENT; PARAMETERIZATION; RAINFALL-RUNOFF MODELING; TIME SERIES;

AUSTRALASIA; AUSTRALIA; EURASIA; EUROPE; FRANCE; NORTH AMERICA; UNITED STATES; WESTERN EUROPE;

EID: 53849118126     PISSN: 00431397     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1029/2007WR006579     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Anctil, F., C. Perrin, and V. Andréassian (2004), Impact of the length of observed records on the performance of ANN and of conceptual parsimonious rainfall-runoff forecasting models, Environ. Modell. Software, 19(4), 357-368.
2. Andréassian, V., C. Perrin, and C. Michel (2004), Impact of imperfect potential evapotranspiration knowledge on the efficiency and parameters of watershed models, J. Hydrol., 286(1-4), 19-35.
3. Andréassian, V., A. Hall, N. Chahinian, and J. Schaake (2006), Introduction and synthesis: Why should hydrologists work on a large number of basin data sets?, in Large Sample Basin Experiments for Hydrological Model Parameterization: Results of the Model Parameter Experiment - MOPEX, edited by V. Andréassian et al., pp. 1-5, IAHS Publ. no. 307, IAHS Press, Wallington, U.K.
4. Andréassian, V., J. Lerat, C. Loumagne, T. Mathevet, C. Michel, L. Oudin, and C. Perrin (2007), What is really undermining hydrologic science today?, Hydrol. Processes, 21(20), 2819-2822.
5. Bastidas, L. A., H. V. Gupta, and S. Sorooshian (2002), Emerging paradigms in the calibration of hydrologic models, in Mathematical Models of Large Watershed Hydrology, edited by V. P. Singh and D. K. Frevert, pp. 23-66, Water Resources Publications, Highlands Ranch, Colo.
6. Bergström, S. (1995), The HBV model, in Computer Models of Watershed Hydrology, edited by V. P. Singh, chap. 13, pp. 443-476, Water Resources Publications, Highlands Ranch, Colo.
7. Beven, K. J., and M. J. Kirkby (1979), A physically based, variable contributing area model of basin hydrology, Hydrol. Sci. Bull., 24(1), 43-69.
8. Boyle, D. P., H. V. Gupta, and S. Sorooshian (2000), Toward improved calibration of hydrologic models: Combining the strengths of manual and automatic methods, Water Resour. Res., 36(12), 3663-3674.
9. Duan, Q., V. K. Gupta, and S. Sorooshian (1993), Shuffled complex evolution approach for effective and efficient global minimization, J. Optim. Theory Appl., 76(3), 163-168.
10. Duan, Q., H. V. Gupta, S. Sorooshian, A. N. Rousseau, and R. Turcotte (2002), Calibration of Watershed Models, 345 pp., AGU, Washington, D. C.
11. Edijatno, N. O. Nascimento, X. Yang, Z. Makhlouf, and C. Michel (1999), GR3J: A daily watershed model with three free parameters, Hydrol. Sci. J., 44(2), 263-277.
12. Fenicia, F., H. H. G. Savenije, P. Matgen, and L. Pfister (2007), A comparison of alternative multiobjective calibration strategies for hydrological modeling, Water Resour. Res., 43, W03434, doi:10.1029/2006WR005098.
13. Franchini, M., and G. Galeati (1997), Comparing several genetic algorithm schemes for the calibration of conceptual rainfall-runoff models, Hydrol. Sci. J., 42(3), 357-379.
14. Gan, T. Y., and G. F. Biftu (1996), Automatic calibration of conceptual rainfall-runoff models: Optimization algorithms, catchment conditions, and model structure, Water Resour. Res., 32(12), 3513-3524.
15. Gan, T. Y., and S. J. Burges (2006), Assessment of soil-based and calibrated parameters of the Sacramento model and parameter transferability, J Hydrol., 320(1-2), 117-131.
16. Gan, T. Y., E. M. Dlamini, and G. F. Biftu (1997), Effects of model complexity and structure, data quality and objective function on hydrologic modeling, J. Hydrol., 192, 81-103.
17. Goswami, M., and K. M. O'Connor (2007), Comparative assessment of six automatic optimization techniques for calibration of a conceptual rainfall-runoff model, Hydrol. Sci. J., 52(3), 432-449.
18. Hogue, T. S., H. Gupta, and S. Sorooshian (2006), A "user- friendly" approach to parameter estimation in hydrologie models, J. Hydrol., 320(1-2), 202-217.
19. Jakeman, A. J., and G. M. Hornberger (1993), How much complexity is warranted in a rainfall-runoff model?, Water Resour. Res., 29(8), 2637-2649.
20. Johnston, P. R., and D. H. Pilgrim (1976), Parameter optimization for watershed models, Water Resour. Res., 12(3), 477-486.
21. Kay, A. L., D. A. Jones, S. M. Crooks, T. R. Kjeldsen, and C. F. Fung (2007), An investigation of site-similarity approaches to generalisation of a rainfall-runoff model, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 11(3), 500-515.
22. Kim, S. M., B. L. Benham, K. M. Brannan, R. W. Zeckoski, and J. Doherty (2007), Comparison of hydrologic calibration of HSPF using automatic and manual methods, Water Resour. Res., 43, W01402, doi:10.1029/2006WR004883.
23. Klemeš, V. (1986), Operational testing of hydrological simulation models, Hydrol. Sci. J., 31(1), 13-24.
24. Kokkonen, T. S., A. J. Jakeman, P. C. Young, and H. J. Koivusalo (2003), Predicting daily flows in ungauged catchments: Model regionalization from catchment descriptors at the Coweeta Hydrologic Laboratory, North Carolina, Hydrol. Processes, 17(11), 2219-2238.
25. Koren, V., M. Smith, and Q. Duan (2003), Use of a priori parameter estimates in the derivation of spatially consistent parameter sets of rainfall-runoff models, Calibration Watershed Models Water Sci. Appl., 6, 239-254.
26. Le Moine, N., V. Andréassian, C. Perrin, and C. Michel (2007), How can rainfall-runoff models handle intercatchment groundwater flows? Theoretical study based on 1040 French catchments, Water Resour. Res., 43, W06428, doi:10.1029/2006WR005608.
27. Mclntyre, N., H. Lee, H. Wheater, A. Young, and T. Wagener (2005), Ensemble predictions of runoff in ungauged catchments, Water Resour. Res., 41, W12434, doi:10.1029/2005WR004289.
28. Merz, R., and G. Blöschl (2004), Regionalisation of catchment model parameters, J. Hydrol., 287(1-4), 95-123.
29. Michel, C., C. Perrin, and V. Andréassian (2003), The exponential store: A correct formulation for rainfall-runoff modelling, Hydrol. Sci. J., 48(1), 109-124.
30. Nash, J. E., and J. V. Sutcliffe (1970), River flow forecasting through conceptual models. part I: A discussion of principles, J. Hydrol., 27(3), 282-290.
31. Oudin, L., F. Hervieu, C. Michel, C. Perrin, V. Andréassian, F. Anctil, and C. Loumagne (2005), Which potential evapotranspiration input for a rainfall-runoff model? part 2: Towards a simple and efficient PE model for rainfall-runoff modelling, J. Hydrol., 303(1-4), 290-306.
32. Ondin, L., V. Andréassian, C. Loumagne, and C. Michel (2006a), How informative is land-cover for the regionalization of the GR4J rainfall-runoff model?, IAHS Publication, 307, 246-255.
33. Ondin, L., V. Andréassian, T. Mathevet, C. Perrin, and C. Michel (2006b), Dynamic averaging of rainfall-runoff model simulations from complementary model parameterizations, Water Resour. Res., 42, W07410, doi:10.1029/2005WR004636.
34. Oudin, L., V. Andréassian, C. Perrin, C. Michel, and N. Le Moine (2008), Spatial proximity, physical similarity and ungauged catchments: Confrontation on 913 French catchments, Water Resour. Res., 44, W03413, doi:10.1029/2007WR006240.
35. Parajka, J., R. Merz, and G. Bloschl (2005), A comparison of regionalisation methods for catchment model parameters, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 9(3), 157-171.
36. Peel, M. C., F. H. S. Chiew, A. W. Western, and T. A. McMahon (2000), Extension of Unimpaired Monthly Streamflow Data and Regionalisation of Parameter Values to Estimate Streamflow in Ungauged Catchments, National Land and Water Resources Audit. Theme 1 - Water Availability, 37 pp., Centre for Environmental Applied Hydrology, The Univ. of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
37. Perrin, C., C. Michel, and V. Andréassian (2001), Does a large number of parameters enhance model performance? Comparative assessment of common catchment model structures on 429 catchments, J. Hydrol., 242(3-4), 275-301.
38. Perrin, C., C. Michel, and V. Andréassian (2003), Improvement of a parsimonious model for stream flow simulation, J. Hydrol., 279(1-4), 275-289.
39. Perrin, C., L. Oudin, V. Andréassian, C. Rojas-Serna, C. Michel, and T. Mathevet (2007), Impact of limited streamflow knowledge on the efficiency and the parameters of rainfall-runoff models, Hydrol. Sci. J., 52(1), 131-151.
40. Rojas-Serna, C. (2005), Quelle connaissance hydrométrique minimale pour définir les paramètres d'un modèle pluie-débit?, Ph.D. thesis, 319 pp., Cemagref, Antony, ENGREF, Paris, France.
41. Rojas-Serna, C., C. Michel, C. Perrin, and V. Andréassian (2006), Ungauged catchments: How to make the most of a few streamflow measurements?, in Large Sample Basin Experiments for Hydrological Model Parameterisation: Results of the Model Parameter Experiment, IAHS Red Books series no. 307, pp. 230-236.
42. Schaake, J., S. Cong, and Q. Duan (2006), The US Mopex data set, in Large Sample Basin Experiments for Hydrological Model Parameterization: Results of the Model Parameter Experiment - MOPEX, edited by V. Andréassian et al., pp. 9-28, IAHS Publ. no. 307, IAHS Press, Wallingford, U.K.
43. Sorooshian, S., and V. K. Gupta (1995), Model calibration, in Computer Models of Watershed Hydrology, edited by V. P. Singh, chap. 2, pp. 23-68, Water Resources Publications, Highlands Ranch, Colo.
44. Sugawara, M. (1979), Automatic calibration of the tank model, Hydrol. Sci. J., 24(3), 375-388.
45. Van Liew, M. W., J. G. Arnold, and D. D. Bosch (2005), Problems and potential of autocalibrating a hydrologic model, Trans. ASAE, 48(3), 1025-1040.
46. Vrugt, J. A., W. Bouten, H. V. Gupta, and S. Sorooshian (2002), Toward improved identifiability of hydrologic model parameters: The information content of experimental data, Water Resour. Res., 38(12), 1312, doi:10.1029/2001WR001118.
47. Wagener, T., N. McIntyre, M. J. Lees, H. S. Wheater, and H. V. Gupta (2003), Towards reduced uncertainty in conceptual rainfall-runoff modelling: Dynamic identifiability analysis, Hydrol. Processes, 17(2), 455-476.
48. Yapo, P. O., H. V. Gupta, and S. Sorooshian (1996), Automatic calibration of conceptual rainfall-runoff models: Sensitivity to calibration data, J. Hydrol., 181, 23-48.
49. Yapo, P. O., H. V. Gupta, and S. Sorooshian (1998), Multi-objective global optimization for hydrologic models, J. Hydrol., 204, 83-97.
50. Young, A. R. (2006), Stream flow simulation within UK ungauged catchments using a daily rainfall-runoff model, J. Hydrol., 320(1-2), 155-172.