Calibration of hydrological models using flow-duration curves

Hydrology and Earth System Sciences

Volumn 15, Issue 7, 2011, Pages 2205-2227

  Westerberg, I K ^a,b   Guerrero, J L ^a,c   Younger, P M ^d,e   Beven, K J ^a,d   Seibert, J ^f,g   Halldin, S ^a   Freer, J E ^h   Xu, C Y ⁱ  

^a UPPSALA UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^b IVL SWEDISH ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Sweden)

^c NATIONAL AUTONOMOUS UNIVERSITY OF HONDURAS   (Honduras)

^d LANCASTER UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^e Environmental Education Consultant   (United States)

^f STOCKHOLM UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^g UNIVERSITY OF ZURICH   (Switzerland)

^h UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL   (United Kingdom)

ⁱ UNIVERSITY OF OSLO   (Norway)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CALIBRATION METHOD; DISCHARGE FREQUENCY; HYDROLOGIC MODELS; HYDROLOGICAL MODELS; MODEL EFFICIENCY; MODEL PERFORMANCE; PERFORMANCE MEASURE; TRADITIONAL MODELS;

CALIBRATION; ERRORS; INPUT OUTPUT PROGRAMS; RUNOFF; SOLUTE TRANSPORT; TIME SERIES; UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS;

CATCHMENTS;

CALIBRATION; CATCHMENT; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DISCHARGE; ESTIMATION METHOD; FLOW MODELING; HYDROGRAPHY; HYDROLOGICAL MODELING; TIME SERIES; UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS; VOLUME TRANSPORT;

ATLANTIDA; HONDURAS; LA CEIBA; UNITED KINGDOM;

EID: 80054710603     PISSN: 10275606     EISSN: 16077938     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5194/hess-15-2205-2011     Document Type: Article

References (76)

1. Allen, R. G., Pereira, L. S., Raes, D., and Smith, M.: Crop evapotranspiration-guidelines for computing crop water requirements, FAO, 300 p., 1998.
2. Ambroise, B., Freer, J., and Beven, K.: Application of a generalized TOPMODEL to the small Ringelbach catchment, Vosges, France, Water Resour. Res., 32, 2147-2159, 1996.
3. Aronica, G. T., Candela, A., Viola, F., and Cannarozzo, M.: Influence of rating curve uncertainty on daily rainfall-runoff model predictions., in: Predictions in Ungauged Basins: Promise and Progress, edited by: Sivapalan, M., Wagener, T., Uhlenbrook, S., Liang, X., Lakshmi, V., Kumar, P., Zehe, E., and Tachikawa, Y., IAHS Publ 303, 116-124, 2006. (Pubitemid 44020328)
4. Bell, V. A. and Moore, R. J.: The sensitivity of catchment runoff models to rainfall data at different spatial scales, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 4, 653-667, doi:10.5194/hess-4-653-2000, 2000. (Pubitemid 32468096)
5. Beven, K. J.: Changing Ideas in Hydrology-the Case of Physically-Based Models, J. Hydrol., 105, 157-172, 1989.
6. Beven, K. J.: A manifesto for the equifinality thesis, J. Hydrol., 320, 18-36, 2006.
7. Beven, K. J.: Environmental Modelling: An Uncertain Future?, Routledge, London, 2009.
8. Beven, K. J.: Preferential flows and travel time distributions: defining adequate hypothesis tests for hydrological process models Preface, Hydrol. Process., 24, 1537-1547, doi:10.1002/Hyp.7718, 2010.
9. Beven, K. J. and Freer, J.: A dynamic TOPMODEL, Hydrol. Process., 15, 1993-2011, 2001. (Pubitemid 32680086)
10. Beven, K. J. and Kirkby, M. J.: A physically based, variable contributing area model of basin hydrology, Hydrolog. Sci. B., 24, 43-69, 1979. (Pubitemid 9451768)
11. Beven, K. J. and Westerberg, I. K.: On red herrings and real herrings: disinformation and information in hydrological inference, Hydrol. Process., 25, 1676-1680, 2011.
12. Beven, K. J., Smith, P. J., and Freer, J. E.: So just why would a modeller choose to be incoherent?, J. Hydrol., 354, 15-32, doi:10.1016/j. jhydrol.2008.02.007, 2008.
13. Beven, K., Smith, P. J., and Wood, A.: On the colour and spin of epistemic error (and what we might do about it), Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss., 8, 5355-5386, doi:10.5194/hessd-8-5355-2011, 2011.
14. Blazkova, S. and Beven, K.: A limits of acceptability approach to model evaluation and uncertainty estimation in flood frequency estimation by continuous simulation: Skalka catchment, Czech Republic, Water Resour. Res., 45, W00b16, doi:10.1029/2007wr006726, 2009.
15. Boyle, D. P., Gupta, H. V., and Sorooshian, S.: Toward improved calibration of hydrologic models: Combining the strengths of manual and automatic methods, Water Resour. Res., 36, 3663-3674, 2000. (Pubitemid 32039916)
16. Bulygina, N., McIntyre, N., and Wheater, H.: Conditioning rainfallrunoff model parameters for ungauged catchments and land management impacts analysis, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 13, 893-904, doi:10.5194/hess-13-893-2009, 2009.
17. Criss, R. E. and Winston, W. E.: Do Nash values have value? Discussion and alternate proposals, Hydrol. Process., 22, 2723-2725, doi:10.1002/Hyp.7072, 2008.
18. Di Baldassarre, G., and Montanari, A.: Uncertainty in river discharge observations: a quantitative analysis, Hydrol Earth Syst Sc, 13, 913-921, 2009.
19. Diaz, H. F., Hoerling, M. P., and Eischeid, J. K.: ENSO variability, teleconnections and climate change, Int. J. Climatol., 21, 1845-1862, 2001. (Pubitemid 34161909)
20. Enfield, D. B. and Alfaro, E. J.: The dependence of Caribbean rainfall on the interaction of the tropical Atlantic and Pacific oceans, J. Climate, 12, 2093-2103, 1999. (Pubitemid 29532519)
21. Freer, J., Beven, K., and Ambroise, B.: Bayesian estimation of uncertainty in runoff prediction and the value of data: An application of the GLUE approach, Water Resour. Res., 32, 2161-2173, 1996.
22. Freer, J., Beven, K. J., and Peters, N.: Multivariate seasonal period model rejection within the generalised likelihood uncertainty estimation procedure, in: Calibration of Watershed Models, edited by: Duan, Q., Gupta, H., Sorooshian, S., Rousseau, A. N., and Turcotte, R., AGU Books, Washington, 69-87, 2003.
23. Freer, J. E., McMillan, H., McDonnell, J. J., and Beven, K. J.: Constraining dynamic TOPMODEL responses for imprecise water table information using fuzzy rule based performance measures, J. Hydrol., 291, 254-277, doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2003.12.037, 2004. (Pubitemid 38527208)
24. Garrick, M., Cunnane, C., and Nash, J. E.: A Criterion of Efficiency for Rainfall-Runoff Models, J. Hydrol., 36, 375-381, 1978.
25. Grayson, R. B., Moore, I. D., and Mcmahon, T. A.: Physically Based Hydrologic Modeling .2. Is the Concept Realistic, Water Resour. Res., 28, 2659-2666, 1992. (Pubitemid 23376343)
26. Global Runoff Data Centre: http://grdc.bafg.de, last access: 23 February 2010, 2010.
27. Gupta, H. V., Sorooshian, S., and Yapo, P. O.: Toward improved calibration of hydrologic models: Multiple and noncommensurable measures of information,Water Resour. Res., 34, 751-763, 1998. (Pubitemid 28159454)
28. Gupta, H. V., Kling, H., Yilmaz, K. K., and Martinez, G. F.: Decomposition of the mean squared error and NSE performance criteria: Implications for improving hydrological modelling, J. Hydrol., 377, 80-91, doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.08.003, 2009.
29. Houghton-Carr, H. A.: Assessment criteria for simple conceptual daily rainfall-runoff models, Hydrol. Sci. J., 44, 237-261, 1999.
30. Huard, D., and Mailhot, A.: Calibration of hydrological model GR2M using Bayesian uncertainty analysis, Water Resour. Res., 44, W02424, doi:10.1029/2007wr005949, 2008. (Pubitemid 351442502)
31. Juston, J., Seibert, J., and Johansson, P. O.: Temporal sampling strategies and uncertainty in calibrating a conceptual hydrological model for a small boreal catchment, Hydrol. Process., 23, 3093-3109, doi:10.1002/Hyp.7421, 2009.
32. Kavetski, D., Fenicia, F., and Clark, M.: Impact of temporal data resolution on parameter inference and model identification in conceptual hydrological modeling: Insights from an experimental catchment, Water Resour. Res., 47, W05501, doi:10.1029/2010WR009525, 2011.
33. Kirchner, J. W.: Getting the right answers for the right reasons: Linking measurements, analyses, and models to advance the science of hydrology, Water Resour. Res., 42, W03s04, doi:10.1029/2005wr004362, 2006.
34. Krause, P., Boyle, D. P., and B̈ase, F.: Comparison of different efficiency criteria for hydrological model assessment, Adv. Geosci., 5, 89-97, 2005, http://www.adv-geosci.net/5/89/2005/. (Pubitemid 44424450)
35. Krueger, T., Freer, J., Quinton, J. N., Macleod, C. J. A., Bilotta, G. S., Brazier, R. E., Butler, P., and Haygarth, P. M.: Ensemble evaluation of hydrological model hypotheses, Water Resour. Res., 46, W07516, doi:10.01029/02009WR00784, 2010.
36. Legates, D. R. and McCabe, G. J.: Evaluating the use of "goodnessof-fit" measures in hydrologic and hydroclimatic model validation, Water Resour. Res., 35, 233-241, 1999. (Pubitemid 29054163)
37. Liu, Y. Q. and Gupta, H. V.: Uncertainty in hydrologic modeling: Toward an integrated data assimilation framework,Water Resour. Res., 43, W07401, doi:10.1029/2006WR005756, 2007. (Pubitemid 350194456)
38. Liu, Y., Freer, J., Beven, K. J., and Matgen, P.: Towards a limits of acceptability approach to the calibration of hydrological models: extending observation error, J. Hydrol., 367, 93-103, doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.01.016, 2009.
39. Magaña, V., Amador, J. A., and Medina, S.: The midsummer drought over Mexico and Central America, J. Climate, 12, 1577-1588, 1999. (Pubitemid 29534613)
40. McDonnell, J. J.: Where does water go when it rains? Moving beyond the variable source area concept of rainfall-runoff response, Hydrol. Process., 17, 1869-1875, 2003.
41. McMillan, H. and Clark, M.: Rainfall-runoff model calibration using informal likelihood measures within a Markov chain Monte Carlo sampling scheme, Water Resour. Res., 45, W04418, doi:10.1029/2008wr007288, 2009.
42. McMillan, H., Freer, J., Pappenberger, F., Krueger, T., and Clark, M.: Impacts of uncertain river flow data on rainfall-runoff model calibration and discharge predictions, Hydrol. Process., 24, 1270-1284, doi:10.1002/Hyp.7587, 2010.
43. Montanari, A. and Toth, E.: Calibration of hydrological models in the spectral domain: An opportunity for scarcely gauged basins?, Water Resour. Res., 43, W05434, doi:10.1029/2006wr005184, 2007. (Pubitemid 46998235)
44. Monteith, J. L.: Evaporation and the Environment, in: The State and Movement of Water in Living Organisms., edited by: Fogg, G. E., Cambridge University Press, 205-234, 1965.
45. Moore, R. J., Jones, D. A., Cox, D. R., and Isham, V. S.: Design of the HYREX raingauge network, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 4, 521-530, doi:10.5194/hess-4-521-2000, 2000.
46. Nash, J. E. and Sutcliffe, J. V.: River flow forecasting through conceptual models 1. A discussion of principles, J. Hydrol., 10, 282-290, 1970.
47. Page, T., Beven, K. J., Freer, J., and Neal, C.: Modelling the chloride signal at Plynlimon, Wales, using a modified dynamic TOPMODEL incorporating conservative chemical mixing (with uncertainty), Hydrol. Process., 21, 292-307, doi:10.1022/Hyp.6186, 2007. (Pubitemid 46190000)
48. Pappenberger, F., Matgen, P., Beven, K. J., Henry, J. B., Pfister, L., and Fraipont de, P.: Influence of uncertain boundary conditions and model structure on flood inundation predictions, Adv. Water Resour., 29, 1430-1449, 2006. (Pubitemid 44522816)
49. Pappenberger, F., Frodsham, K., Beven, K., Romanowicz, R., and Matgen, P.: Fuzzy set approach to calibrating distributed flood inundation models using remote sensing observations, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 11, 739-752, doi:10.5194/hess-11-739-2007, 2007. (Pubitemid 46134821)
50. Pelletier, P.: Uncertainties in the single determination of river discharge: a literature review, Can. J. Civil Eng., 15, 834-850, 1988.
51. Petersen-Overleir, A., Soot, A., and Reitan, T.: Bayesian Rating Curve Inference as a Streamflow Data Quality Assessment Tool, Water Resour. Manag., 23, 1835-1842, doi:10.1007/s11269-008-9354-5, 2009.
52. Portig,W. H.: The climate of Central America, in: World Survey of Climatology, edited by: Schwerdtfeger, W., Elsevier, New York, 405-464, 1976.
53. Refsgaard, J. C. and Knudsen, J.: Operational validation and intercomparison of different types of hydrological models, Water Resour. Res., 32, 2189-2202, 1996.
54. Renard, B., Kavetski, D., Kuczera, G., Thyer, M., and Franks, S. W.: Understanding predictive uncertainty in hydrologic modeling: The challenge of identifying input and structural errors, Water Resour. Res., 46, W05521, doi:10.1029/2009wr008328, 2010.
55. Schaefli, B. and Gupta, H. V.: Do Nash values have value?, Hydrol. Process., 21, 2075-2080, doi:10.1002/Hyp.6825, 2007. (Pubitemid 47098253)
56. Schoups, G. and Vrugt, J. A.: A formal likelihood function for parameter and predictive inference of hydrologic models with correlated, heteroscedastic, and non-Gaussian errors, Water Resour. Res., 46, W10531, doi:10.1029/ 2009WR008933, 2010.
57. Seibert, J.: On the need for benchmarks in hydrological modelling, Hydrol. Process., 15, 1063-1064, doi:10.1002/hyp.446, 2001.
58. Seibert, J. and Beven, K. J.: Gauging the ungauged basin: how many discharge measurements are needed?, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 13, 883-892, doi:10.5194/hess-13-883-2009, 2009.
59. Smith, P., Beven, K. J., and Tawn, J. A.: Informal likelihood measures in model assessment: Theoretic development and investigation, Adv Water Resour, 31, 1087-1100, doi:10.1016/j.advwatres.2008.04.012, 2008.
60. Son, K. and Sivapalan, M.: Improving model structure and reducing parameter uncertainty in conceptual water balance models through the use of auxiliary data, Water Resour. Res., 43, W01415, doi:01410.01029/02006wr005032, 2007.
61. Sugawara, M.: Automatic calibration of the tank model, Hydrol. Sci. B., 24, 375-388, 1979.
62. Thyer, M., Renard, B., Kavetski, D., Kuczera, G., Franks, S. W., and Srikanthan, S.: Critical evaluation of parameter consistency and predictive uncertainty in hydrological modeling: A case study using Bayesian total error analysis, Water Resour. Res., 45, W00b14, doi:10.1029/2008wr006825, 2009.
63. Wagener, T., Boyle, D. P., Lees, M. J., Wheater, H. S., Gupta, H. V., and Sorooshian, S.: A framework for development and application of hydrological models, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 5, 13-26, doi:10.5194/hess-5-13-2001, 2001. (Pubitemid 32710655)
64. Westerberg, I., Walther, A., Guerrero, J.-L., Coello, Z., Halldin, S., Xu, C. Y., Chen, D., and Lundin, L.-C.: Precipitation data in a mountainous catchment in Honduras: quality assessment and spatiotemporal characteristics, J. Theor. Appl. Clim., 101, 381-396, doi:10.1007/s00704-009-0222-x, 2010.
65. Westerberg, I., Guerrero, J.-L., Seibert, J., Beven, K. J., and Halldin, S.: Stage-discharge uncertainty derived with a non-stationary rating curve in the Choluteca River, Honduras, Hydrol. Process., 25, 603-613, doi:10.1002/hyp.7848, 2011.
66. Widen-Nilsson, E., Halldin, S., and Xu, C. Y.: Global water-balance modelling with WASMOD-M: Parameter estimation and regionalisation, J. Hydrol., 340, 105-118, 2007. (Pubitemid 46874469)
67. Winsemius, H. C., Schaefli, B., Montanari, A., and Savenije, H. H. G.: On the calibration of hydrological models in ungauged basins: A framework for integrating hard and soft hydrological information, Water Resour. Res., 45, W12422, doi:12410.11029/12009wr007706, 2009.
68. Vogel, R. M., and Fennessey, N. M.: Flow-Duration Curves. 1: New Interpretation and Confidence-Intervals, J Water Res Pl-Asce, 120, 485-504, 1994. (Pubitemid 291087)
69. Wood, S. J., Jones, D. A., and Moore, R. J.: Accuracy of rainfall measurement for scales of hydrological interest, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 4, 531-543, doi:10.5194/hess-4-531-2000, 2000. (Pubitemid 32468087)
70. Xu, C.-Y.: WASMOD-The water and snow balance modeling system, in: Mathematical Models of Small Watershed Hydrology and Applications, edited by: Singh, V. J. a. F., D.K., Water Resources Publications LLC, Highlands Ranch, Colorado, US, 555-590, 2002.
71. Xu, C.-Y. and Halldin, S.: The effect of climate change on river flow and snow cover in the NOPEX area simulated by a simple water balance model, Nord Hydrol., 28, 273-282, 1997.
72. Yadav, M., Wagener, T., and Gupta, H.: Regionalization of constraints on expected watershed response behavior for improved predictions in ungauged basins, Adv. Water Resour., 30, 1756-1774, doi:10.1016/j.advwatres.2007.01.005, 2007. (Pubitemid 46712120)
73. Yilmaz, K. K., Gupta, H. V., and Wagener, T.: A process-based diagnostic approach to model evaluation: Application to the NWS distributed hydrologic model, Water Resour. Res., 44, W09417, doi:10.1029/2007wr006716, 2008.
74. Younger, P. M., Freer, J. E., and Beven, K. J.: Detecting the effects of spatial variability of rainfall on hydrological modelling within an uncertainty analysis framework, Hydrol Process, 23, 1988-2003, doi:10.1002/Hyp.7341, 2009.
75. Younger, P. M., Beven, K. J., and Freer, J. E.: Limits of acceptability and complex error reconstruction in a rainfall-runoff simulation, J Hydrol, in review, 2011.
76. Yu, P. S. and Yang, T. C.: Using synthetic flow duration curves for rainfall-runoff model calibration at ungauged sites, Hydrol. Process., 14, 117-133, 2000.