An approach to identify time consistent model parameters: Sub-period calibration

Hydrology and Earth System Sciences

Volumn 17, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 149-161

  Gharari, S ^a,b   Hrachowitz, M ^a   Fenicia, F ^a,b   Savenije, H H G ^a  

^a DELFT UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Netherlands)

^b Public Research Center Gabriel Lippmann   (Luxembourg)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DETERMINATION OF PARAMETERS; DIAGNOSTIC TOOLS; HYDROLOGICAL MODELS; KEY OBJECTIVE; LUXEMBOURG; MODEL CALIBRATION; MODEL PARAMETERS; MODEL PERFORMANCE; PARAMETER ESTIMATE; PARAMETER SET; TESTING MODELS; TRANSPOSABILITY;

CALIBRATION; CATCHMENTS; IDENTIFICATION (CONTROL SYSTEMS);

PARAMETER ESTIMATION;

CALIBRATION; CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK; HYDROLOGICAL MODELING; MODEL VALIDATION; PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT;

EID: 84872722437     PISSN: 10275606     EISSN: 16077938     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5194/hess-17-149-2013     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Anderson, M. P. and Woessner, W. W.: The role of the postaudit in model validation, Adv. Water Resour., 15, 167-173, 1992. (Pubitemid 23375354)
2. Andréassian, V., Perrin, C., Berthet, L., Le Moine, N., Lerat, J., Loumagne, C., Oudin, L., Mathevet, T., Ramos, M.-H., and Valéry, A.: HESS Opinions "Crash tests for a standardized evaluation of hydrological models", Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 13, 1757-1764, doi:10.5194/hess-13-1757- 2009, 2009.
3. Andréassian, V., Le Moine, N., Perrin, C., Ramos, M.-H., Oudin, L., Mathevet, T., Lerat, J., and Berthet, L.: All that glitters is not gold: the case of calibrating hydrological models, Hydrol. Process., 26, 2206-2210, doi:10.1002/hyp.9264, 2012.
4. Bárdossy, A. and Singh, S. K.: Robust estimation of hydrologi-cal model parameters, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 12, 1273-1283, doi:10.5194/hess-12- 1273-2008, 2008.
5. Beven, K.: A manifesto for the equifinality thesis, J. Hydrol., 320, 18-36, doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2005.07.007, 2006.
6. Beven, K. J. and Binley, A. M.: The future of distributed models: Model calibration and uncertainty prediction, Hydrol. Process., 6, 279-298, 1992.
7. Birkel, C., Dunn, S. M., Tetzlaff, D., and Soulsby, C.: Assessing the value of high-resolution isotope tracer data in the stepwise development of a lumped conceptual rainfall-runoff model, Hy-drol. Process., 24, 2335-2348, doi:10.1002/hyp.7763, 2010.
8. 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, doi:10.1029/2000WR900207, 2000. (Pubitemid 32039916)
9. Boyle, D. P., Gupta, H. V., Sorooshian, S., Koren, V., Zhang, Z., and Smith, M.: Toward improved streamflow forecasts: value of semidistributed modeling, Water Resour. Res., 37, 2749-2759, doi:10.1029/2000WR000207, 2001. (Pubitemid 32996668)
10. Clark, M. P., Slater, A. G., Rupp, D. E., Woods, R. A., Vrugt, J. A., Gupta, H. V., Wagener, T., and Hay, L. E.: Framework for Understanding Structural Errors (FUSE): A modular framework to diagnose differences between hydrological models, Water Resour. Res., 44, W00B02, doi:10.1029/2007WR006735, 2008.
11. Coron, L., Andréassian, V., Perrin, C., Lerat, J., Vaze, J., Bourqui, M., and Hendrickx, F.: Crash testing hydrological models in contrasted climate conditions: An experiment on 216 Australian catchments, Water Resour. Res., 48, W05552, doi:10.1029/2011WR011721, 2012.
12. Dunn, S. M., Bacon, J. R., Soulsby, C., Tetzlaff, D., Stutter, M. I., Waldron, S., and Malcolm, I. A.: Interpretation of homogeneity in 18O signatures of stream water in a nested sub-catchment system in north-east Scotland, Hydrol. Process., 22, 4767-4782, doi:10.1002/hyp.7088, 2008.
13. Efstratiadis, A. and Koutsoyiannis, D.: One decade of multi-objective calibration approaches in hydrologi-cal modelling: a review, Hydrol. Sci. J., 55, 58-78, doi:10.1080/02626660903526292, 2010.
14. Fenicia, F., Savenije, H. H. G., Matgen, P., and Pfister, L.: A comparison of alternative multiobjective calibration strategies for hydrological modeling, Water Resour. Res., 43, W03434, doi:10.1029/2006WR005098, 2007. (Pubitemid 46682804)
15. Fenicia, F., Savenije, H. H. G., Matgen, P., and Pfister, L.: Understanding catchment behavior through stepwise model concept improvement, Water Resour. Res., 44, W01402, doi:10.1029/2006WR005563, 2008. (Pubitemid 351304127)
16. Fenicia, F., Wrede, S., Kavetski, D., Pfister, L., Hoffmann, L., Savenije, H. H. G., and McDonnell, J. J.: Assessing the impact of mixing assumptions on the estimation of streamwa-ter mean residence time, Hydrol. Process., 24, 1730-1741, doi:10.1002/hyp.7595, 2010.
17. Fenicia, F., Kavetski, D., and Savenije, H. H. G.: Elements of a flexible approach for conceptual hydrological modeling: 1. Motivation and theoretical development, Water Resour. Res., 47, W11510, doi:10.1029/2010WR010174, 2011.
18. Freer, J., Beven, K., and Peters, N.: Multivariate seasonal period model rejection within the generalised likelihood uncertainty estimation procedure, Water Sci. Appl., 6, 69-87, doi:10.1029/WS006p0069, available at: http://www.agu.org/books/ws/v006/WS006p0069/WS006p0069.shtml, 2003.
19. Freer, J., McMillan, H., McDonnell, J., and Beven, K.: 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)
20. Gharari, S., Hrachowitz, M., Fenicia, F., and Savenije, H. H. G.: Hydrological landscape classification: investigating the performance of HAND based landscape classifications in a central European meso-scale catchment, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 15, 3275-3291, doi:10.5194/hess-15-3275-2011, 2011.
21. Gupta, H. V., Sorooshian, S., and Yapo, P. O.: Toward improved calibration of hydrologic models: Multiple and noncommensu-rable measures of information, Water Resour. Res., 34, 751-763, doi:10.1029/97WR03495, 1998. (Pubitemid 28159454)
22. Gupta, H. V., Wagener, T., and Liu, Y.: Reconciling theory with observations: elements of a diagnostic approach to model evaluation, Hydrol. Process., 22, 3802-3813, doi:10.1002/hyp.6989, 2008.
23. Hamon, W. R.: Estimating potential evapotranspiration, Journal Hydraulic Division, 87, 107-120, 1961.
24. Hartmann, G. and Bárdossy, A.: Investigation of the transferabil-ity of hydrological models and a method to improve model calibration, Adv. Geosci., 5, 83-87, doi:10.5194/adgeo-5-83-2005, 2005. (Pubitemid 44304013)
25. Hassan, A. E.: Validation of numerical ground water models used to guide decision making, Ground Water, 42, 277-290, doi:10.1111/j.1745-6584.2004. tb02674.x, 2004. (Pubitemid 38300147)
26. Hrachowitz, M., Savenije, H., Bogaard, T. A., Tetzlaff, D., and Soulsby, C.: What can flux tracking teach us about water age distributions and their temporal dynamics?, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss., 9, 11363-11435, doi:10.5194/hessd-9-11363-2012, 2012.
27. 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.
28. Klemes, V.: Operational testing of hydrological simulation models, Hydrolog. Sci. J., 31, 13-24, doi:10.1080/02626668609491024, 1986. (Pubitemid 16519390)
29. Krauße, T. and Cullmann, J.: Towards a more representative parametrisation of hydrologic models via synthesizing the strengths of Particle Swarm Optimisation and Robust Parameter Estimation, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 16, 603-629, doi:10.5194/hess-16-603-2012, 2012.
30. Li, C. Z., Zhang, L., Wang, H., Zhang, Y. Q., Yu, F. L., and Yan, D. H.: The transferability of hydrological models under nonstation-ary climatic conditions, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 16, 1239-1254, doi:10.5194/hess-16-1239- 2012, 2012.
31. Mroczkowski, M., Raper, P. G., and Kuczera, G.: The quest for more powerful validation of conceptual catchment models, Water Re-sour. Res., 33, 2325-2335, doi:10.1029/97WR01922, 1997. (Pubitemid 27426690)
32. Refsgaard, J. C. and Hansen, J. R.: A good-looking catchment can turn into a modeller's nightmare, Hydrolog. Sci. J., 55, 899-912, doi:10.1080/02626667.2010.505571, 2010.
33. Refsgaard, J. C., Henriksen, H. J., Harrar, W. G., Scholten, H., and Kassahun, A.: Quality assurance in model based water management-review of existing practice and outline of new approaches, Environ. Modell. Softw., 20, 1201-1215, doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2004.07.006, 2005. (Pubitemid 40451733)
34. Savenije, H. H. G.: HESS Opinions "The art of hydrology"&z. ast;, Hy-drol. Earth Syst. Sci., 13, 157-161, doi:10.5194/hess-13-157-2009, 2009.
35. Schaefli, B. and Gupta, H. V.: Do Nash values have value?, Hydrol. Process., 21, 2075-2080, doi:10.1002/hyp.6825, 2007. (Pubitemid 47098253)
36. Seibert, J.: Reliability of model predictions outside calibration conditions, Nord. Hydrol., 34, 477-492, 2003. (Pubitemid 38285872)
37. Seiller, G., Anctil, F., and Perrin, C.: Multimodel evaluation of twenty lumped hydrological models under contrasted climate conditions, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 16, 1171-1189, doi:10.5194/hess-16-1171-2012, 2012.
38. Singh, S. K. and Bárdossy, A.: Calibration of hydrological models on hydrologically unusual events, Adv. Water Resour., 38, 81-91, doi:10.1016/j.advwatres.2011.12.006, 2012.
39. 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:10.1029/2006WR005032, 2007. (Pubitemid 46364293)
40. Tukey, J. W.: Mathematics and the Picturing of Data, 2, pp. 523-531, in Proceedings of the 1975 international 17 congress of mathematics, 1975.
41. Uhlenbrook, S. and Sieber, A.: On the value of experimental data to reduce the prediction uncertainty of a process-oriented catchment model, Environ. Modell. Softw., 20, 19-32, doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2003.12.006, 2005. (Pubitemid 39131470)
42. Vaché, K. and McDonnell, J.: A process-based rejectionist framework for evaluating catchment runoff model structure, Water Re-sour. Res., 42, W02409, doi:10.1029/2005WR004247, 2006.
43. Vrugt, J. A., Gupta, H. V., Bastidas, L. A., Bouten, W., and Sorooshian, S.: Effective and efficient algorithm for multiobjec-tive optimization of hydrologic models, Water Resour. Res., 39, 1214, doi:10.1029/2002WR001746, 2003.
44. Wagener, T.: Evaluation of catchment models, Hydrol. Process., 17, 3375-3378, doi:10.1002/hyp.5158, 2003.
45. 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)
46. Wagener, T., Lees, M. J., and Wheater, H. S.: Mathematical Models of Large Watershed Hydrology, chap. A framework for the development and application of parsimonios hydrological models, Water Resources Publications, 91-140, 2002.
47. Wagener, T., McIntyre, N., Lees, M. J., Wheater, H. S., and Gupta, H. V.: Towards reduced uncertainty in conceptual rainfall-runoff modelling: dynamic identifiability analysis, Hydrol. Process., 17, 455-476, doi:10.1002/hyp.1135, 2003. (Pubitemid 36234589)
48. Weiler, M., McGlynn, B., McGuire, K., and McDonnell, J.: How does rainfall become runoff? A combined tracer and runoff transfer function approach, Water Resour. Res., 39, 1315, doi:10.1029/2003WR002331, 2003.
49. Westerberg, I. K., Guerrero, J.-L., Younger, P. M., Beven, K. J., Seibert, J., Halldin, S., Freer, J. E., and Xu, C.-Y.: Calibration of hydrological models using flow-duration curves, Hy-drol. Earth Syst. Sci., 15, 2205-2227, doi:10.5194/hess-15-2205-2011, 2011.
50. Wheater, H. S., Jakeman, A. J., and Beven, K. J.: Progress and directions in rainfall-runoff modeling, John Wiley & Sons, 1993.
51. Winsemius, H. C., Savenije, H. H. G., and Bastiaanssen, W. G. M.: Constraining model parameters on remotely sensed evaporation: justification for distribution in ungauged basins?, Hy-drol. Earth Syst. Sci., 12, 1403-1413, doi:10.5194/hess-12-1403-2008, 2008.
52. Wood, E. F. and Rodŕ?guez-Iturbe, I.: A Bayesian approach to analyzing uncertainty among flood frequency models, Water Resour. Res., 11, 839-843, doi:10.1029/WR011i006p00839, 1975.
53. Zitzler, E. and Thiele, L.: Multiobjective evolutionary algorithms: a comparative case study and the strength Pareto approach, IEEE T. Evolut. Comput., 3, 257-271, doi:10.1109/4235.797969, 1999. (Pubitemid 30544879)