Time-varying sensitivity analysis clarifies the effects of watershed model formulation on model behavior

Water Resources Research

Volumn 49, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 1400-1414

  Herman, J D ^a   Reed, P M ^a   Wagener, T ^a,b  

^a The Pennsylvania State University   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

hydroclimatic gradient; rainfall runoff modeling; sensitivity analysis

Indexed keywords

EVAPOTRANSPIRATION; MODEL STRUCTURES; RAIN; RUNOFF; SOIL MOISTURE;

DIAGNOSTIC APPROACH; HIGH FLOW CONDITIONS; HYDROCLIMATIC; HYDROCLIMATIC CONDITIONS; PERFORMANCE CONTROL; PROCESS FORMULATIONS; RAINFALL-RUNOFF MODELING; RAINFALL-RUNOFF MODELS;

SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS;

CLIMATE PREDICTION; FLOW PATTERN; PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT; PRECIPITATION (CLIMATOLOGY); RAINFALL-RUNOFF MODELING; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; STREAMFLOW; TEMPORAL PERIOD; WATERSHED;

UNITED STATES;

HEPATITIS B VIRUS;

EID: 84876733457     PISSN: 00431397     EISSN: 19447973     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/wrcr.20124     Document Type: Article

References (87)

1. Abebe, N., F. Ogden, and, N. Pradhan, (2010), Sensitivity and uncertainty analysis of the conceptual HBV rainfall-runoff model: Implications for parameter estimation, J. Hydrol., 389 (3-4), 301-310.
2. Anderson, E., (2002), Calibration of conceptual hydrologic models for use in river forecasting, NOAA Tech. Rep. NWS 45, Hydrol. Lab., Silver Spring, MD.
3. Arheimer, B., and, R. Liden, (2000), Nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations from agricultural catchments-influence of spatial and temporal variables, J. Hydrol., 227 (1-4), 140-159. (Pubitemid 30104924)
4. Bastidas, L., T. Hogue, S. Sorooshian, H. Gupta, and, W. Shuttleworth, (2006), Parameter sensitivity analysis for different complexity land surface models using multicriteria methods, J. Geophys. Res., 111, D20101, doi: 10.1029/2005JD006377.
5. Bergström, S., (1975), The development of a snow routine for the HBV-2 model, Nordic Hydrol., 6 (2), 73-92.
6. Bergström, S., (1995), The HBV model, in Computer Models of Watershed Hydrology, edited by, V. Singh, p. 443-476, Water Resour. Publ., Highlands Ranch, Colo.
7. Beven, K., (2001), On hypothesis testing in hydrology, Hydrol. Process., 15 (9), 1655-1657.
8. Boyle, D., H. 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. (Pubitemid 32039916)
9. Burnash, R., (1995), The NWS river forecast System-Catchment modeling, in Computer Models of Watershed Hydrology, edited by, V. Singh, p. 311-366, Water Resour. Publ., Littleton, Colo.
10. Chiew, F., and, T. McMahon, (1994), Application of the daily rainfall-runoff model MODHYDROLOG to 28 Australian catchments, J. Hydrol., 153 (1-4), 383-416, doi: 10.1016/0022-1694(94)90200-3.
11. Clark, M., A. Slater, D. Rupp, R. Woods, J. Vrugt, H. Gupta, T. Wagener, and, L. Hay, (2008), Framework for understanding structural errors (FUSE): A modular framework to diagnose differences between hydrological models, Water Resour. Res., 44, W00B02, doi: 10.1029/2007WR006735.
12. Clark, M., D. Kavetski, and, F. Fenicia, (2011a), Pursuing the method of multiple working hypotheses for hydrological modeling, Water Resour. Res., 47, W09301, doi: 10.1029/2010WR009827.
13. Clarke, R., (1973), A review of some mathematical models used in hydrology, with observations on their calibration and use, J. Hydrol., 19 (1), 1-20, doi: 10.1016/0022-1694(73)90089-9.
14. Cloke, H., F. Pappenberger, and, J. Renaud, (2008), Multi-method global sensitivity analysis (MMGSA) for modelling floodplain hydrological processes, Hydrol. Process., 22 (11), 1660-1674. (Pubitemid 351766945)
15. Demaria, E., B. Nijssen, and, T. Wagener, (2007), Monte carlo sensitivity analysis of land surface parameters using the variable infiltration capacity model, J. Geophys. Res., 112, D11113, doi: 10.1029/2006JD007534.
16. deVos, N., T. Rientjes, and, H. Gupta, (2010), Diagnostic evaluation of conceptual rainfall-runoff models using temporal clustering, Hydrol. Process., 24 (20), 2840-2850.
17. Diskin, M., and, E. Simon, (1977), A procedure for the selection of objective functions for hydrologic simulation models, J. Hydrol., 34 (1-2), 129-149.
18. Duan, Q., et al. (2006), Model parameter estimation experiment (MOPEX): An overview of science strategy and major results from the second and third workshops, J. Hydrol., 320 (1-2), 3-17.
19. Duan, Q., N. Ajami, X. Gao, and, S. Sorooshian, (2007), Multi-model ensemble hydrologic prediction using Bayesian model averaging, Adv. Water Resour., 30 (5), 1371-1386. (Pubitemid 46323445)
20. Ewen, J., and, G. Parkin, (1996), Validation of catchment models for predicting land-use and climate change impacts, J. Hydrol., 175 (1-4), 583-594.
21. Fenicia, F., H. Savenije, P. Matgen, and, L. Pfister, (2006), Is the groundwater reservoir linear? Learning from data in hydrological modelling, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 10 (1), 139-150.
22. Fenicia, F., H. 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.
23. Franchini, M., and, M. Pacciani, (1991), Comparative analysis of several conceptual rainfall-runoff models, J. Hydrol., 122 (1-4), 161-219.
24. Franchini, M., J. Wendling, C. Obled, and, E. Todini, (1996), Physical interpretation and sensitivity analysis of the TOPMODEL, J. Hydrol., 175 (1-4), 293-338.
25. Freer, J., K. Beven, and, B. Ambroise, (1996), Bayesian estimation of uncertainty in runoff prediction and the value of data: An application of the GLUE approach, Water Resour. Res., 32 (7), 2161-2173.
26. Gan, T., E. Dlamini, and, G. Biftu, (1997), Effects of model complexity and structure, data quality, and objective functions on hydrologic modeling, J. Hydrol., 192 (1-4), 81-103.
27. Grayson, R., and, G. Blöschl, (2001), Spatial Patterns in Catchment Hydrology: Observations and Modelling, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, U. K.
28. Gupta, H., S. Sorooshian, and, P. Yapo, (1998), Toward improved calibration of hydrologic models: Multiple and noncommensurable measures of information, Water Resour. Res., 34 (4), 751-763. (Pubitemid 28159454)
29. Gupta, H.V., T. Wagener, and, Y. Liu, (2008), Reconciling theory with observations: elements of a diagnostic approach to model evaluation, Hydrol. Process., 22 (18), 3802-3813.
30. Hall, J., S. Tarantola, P. Bates, and, M. Horritt, (2005), Distributed sensitivity analysis of flood inundation model calibration, J. Hydraul. Eng., 131, 117-126. (Pubitemid 40191047)
31. Hamon, W., (1961), Estimating potential evapotranspiration, Journal Hydraulics Division, Proceedings of American Society of Civil Engineers, vol. 87, p. 107-120.
32. Harlin, J., and, C. Kung, (1992), Parameter uncertainty and simulation of design floods in Sweden, J. Hydrol., 137 (1-4), 209-230. (Pubitemid 23374182)
33. Hogue, T., H. Gupta, and, S. Sorooshian, (2006), A 'user-friendly' approach to parameter estimation in hydrologic models, J. Hydrol., 320 (1-2), 202-217, doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2005.07.009, WOS:000236448000013.
34. Hornberger, G., and, R. Spear, (1981), Approach to the preliminary analysis of environmental systems, J. Environ. Manage., 12 (1), 7-18.
35. Hundecha, Y., and, A. Bárdossy, (2004), Modeling of the effect of land use changes on the runoff generation of a river basin through parameter regionalization of a watershed model, J. Hydrol., 292 (1-4), 281-295, doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2004.01.002. (Pubitemid 38583612)
36. Kollat, J., P. Reed, and, T. Wagener, (2011), When are multi-objective calibration tradeoffs in Rainfall-Runoff models meaningful? Water Resour. Res., 48, W03520, doi: 10.1029/2011WR011534.
37. Krueger, T., J. Freer, J. N. Quinton, C. J. A. Macleod, G. S. Bilotta, R. E. Brazier, P. Butler, and, P. M. Haygarth, (2010), Ensemble evaluation of hydrological model hypotheses, Water Resour. Res., 46, W07516, doi:2010 10.1029/2009WR007845.
38. Kuczera, G., and, S. Franks, (2002), Testing hydrologic models: Fortification or falsification, in Mathematical Modeling of Large Watershed Hydrology, edited by, V. Singh, and, D. Frevert, p. 141-186, Water Resour. Publ., Littleton, Colo.
39. Laaha, G., and, G. Blöschl, (2006), A comparison of low flow regionalisation methods-catchment grouping, J. Hydrol., 323 (1-4), 193-214, doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2005.09.001. (Pubitemid 43728887)
40. Lidén, R., and, J. Harlin, (2000), Analysis of conceptual rainfall-runoff modelling performance in different climates, J. Hydrol., 238 (3-4), 231-247, doi: 10.1016/S0022-1694(00)00330-9.
41. Loague, K., and, R. Freeze, (1985), A comparison of rainfall-runoff modeling techniques on small upland catchments, Water Resour. Res., 21 (2), 229-248.
42. Martinec, J., and, A. Rango, (1989), Merits of statistical criteria for the performance of hydrological models, J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc., 25 (2), 421-432.
43. Martinez, G., and, H. Gupta, (2010), Toward improved identification of hydrological models: A diagnostic evaluation of the abcd monthly water balance model for the conterminous United States, Water Resour. Res., 46, W08507, doi: 10.1029/2009WR008294.
44. McCuen, R., (1973), The role of sensitivity analysis in hydrologic modeling, J. Hydrol., 18 (1), 37-53, doi: 10.1016/0022-1694(73)90024-3.
45. McIntyre, 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.
46. Merz, R., and, G. Blöschl, (2004), Regionalisation of catchment model parameters, J. Hydrol., 287 (1-4), 95-123, doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2003.09. 028. (Pubitemid 38300324)
47. Michaud, J., and, S. Sorooshian, (1994), Comparison of simple versus complex distributed runoff models on a midsized semiarid watershed, Water Resour. Res., 30 (3), 593-605.
48. Moore, R., (2007), The PDM rainfall-runoff model, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 11 (1), 483-499. (Pubitemid 46134785)
49. Mroczkowski, M., P. Raper, and, G. Kuczera, (1997), The quest for more powerful validation of conceptual catchment models, Water Resour. Res., 33 (10), 2325-2335. (Pubitemid 27426690)
50. Muleta, M., and, J. Nicklow, (2005), Sensitivity and uncertainty analysis coupled with automatic calibration for a distributed watershed model, J. Hydrol., 306 (1-4), 127-145. (Pubitemid 40678746)
51. Neuman, S., (2003), Maximum likelihood bayesian averaging of uncertain model predictions, Stochastic Environ. Res. Risk Assess., 17 (5), 291-305. (Pubitemid 38013163)
52. O'Loughlin, F., M. Bruen, and, T. Wagener, (2012), Parameter sensitivity of a watershed-scale flood forecasting model as a function of modelling time-step, Hydrol. Res., doi: 10.2166/nh.2012.157, in press.
53. Pappenberger, F., K. J. Beven, M. Ratto, and, P. Matgen, (2008), Multi-method global sensitivity analysis of flood inundation models, Adv. Water Resour., 31, 1-14, doi: 10.1016/j.advwatres.2007.04.009. (Pubitemid 350082670)
54. Perrin, C., C. Michel, and, V. Andrassian, (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. (Pubitemid 32169968)
55. Refsgaard, J., and, J. Knudsen, (1996), Operational validation and intercomparison of different types of hydrological models, Water Resour. Res., 32 (7), 2189-2202.
56. Reusser, D., and, E. Zehe, (2011), Inferring model structural deficits by analyzing temporal dynamics of model performance and parameter sensitivity, Water Resour. Res., 47, W07550, doi: 10.1029/2010WR009946.
57. Reusser, D., W. Buytaert, and, E. Zehe, (2011), Temporal dynamics of model parameter sensitivity for computationally expensive models with the Fourier amplitude sensitivity test, Water Resour. Res., 47, W07551, doi: 10.1029/2010WR009947.
58. Saltelli, A., (2002), Making best use of model evaluations to compute sensitivity indices, Comput. Phys. Commun., 145 (2), 280-297, doi: 10.1016/S0010-4655(02)00280-1. (Pubitemid 34524628)
59. Saltelli, A., (2008), Global Sensitivity Analysis: The Primer, John Wiley, West Sussex, England.
60. Seibert, J., (1997), Estimation of parameter uncertainty in the HBV model, Nordic Hydrol., 28 (4), 247-262.
61. Seibert, J., (2000), Multi-criteria calibration of a conceptual runoff model using a genetic algorithm, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 4 (2), 215-224.
62. Sieber, A., and, S. Uhlenbrook, (2005), Sensitivity analyses of a distributed catchment model to verify the model structure, J. Hydrol., 310 (1-4), 216-235. (Pubitemid 40837293)
63. Singh, R., T. Wagener, K. van Werkhoven, M. E. Mann, and, R. Crane, (2011), A trading-space-for-time approach to probabilistic continuous streamflow predictions in a changing climate-Accounting for changing watershed behavior, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 15 (11), 3591-3603, doi: 10.5194/hess-15-3591-2011.
64. Sivakumar, B., (2008), Dominant processes concept, model simplification and classification framework in catchment hydrology, Stochastic Environ. Res. Risk Assess., 22 (6), 737-748.
65. Smith, M., D. Laurine, V. Koren, S. Reed, and, Z. Zhang, (2003), Hydrologic model calibration in the national weather service, in Calibration of Watershed Models, Water Science and Application, edited by, Q. Duan, H. V. Gupta, S. Sorooshian, A. N. Rousseau, R. Turcotte, vol. 6, p. 133-152, AGU Press: Washington, D. C.
66. Sobol ′, I., (2001), Global sensitivity indices for nonlinear mathematical models and their Monte Carlo estimates, Math. Comput. Simul., 55 (1-3), 271-280. (Pubitemid 32672729)
67. Staudinger, M., K. Stahl, J. Seibert, M. P. Clark, and, L. M. Tallaksen, (2011), Comparison of hydrological model structures based on recession and low flow simulations, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 15 (11), 3447-3459, doi: 10.5194/hess-15-3447-2011.
68. Tang, Y., P. Reed, T. Wagener, and, K. Van Werkhoven, (2007a), Comparing sensitivity analysis methods to advance lumped watershed model identification and evaluation, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 11 (2), 793-817. (Pubitemid 46204653)
69. Tang, Y., P. Reed, K. Van Werkhoven, and, T. Wagener, (2007b), Advancing the identification and evaluation of distributed rainfall-runoff models using global sensitivity analysis, Water Resour. Res., 43, W06415, doi: 10.1029/2006WR005813.
70. Uhlenbrook, S., J. Seibert, C. Leibundgut, and, A. Rodhe, (1999), Prediction uncertainty of conceptual rainfall-runoff models caused by problems in identifying model parameters and structure, Hydrol. Sci. J., 44 (5), 779-797. (Pubitemid 30037325)
71. van Werkhoven, K., T. Wagener, P. Reed, and, Y. Tang, (2008a), Characterization of watershed model behavior across a hydroclimatic gradient, Water Resour. Res., 44, W01429, doi: 10.1029/2007WR006271.
72. van Werkhoven, K., T. Wagener, P. Reed, and, Y. Tang, (2008b), Rainfall characteristics define the value of streamflow observations for distributed watershed model identification, Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L11403, doi: 10.1029/2008GL034162.
73. van Werkhoven, K., T. Wagener, P. Reed, and, Y. Tang, (2009), Sensitivity-guided reduction of parametric dimensionality for multi-objective calibration of watershed models, Adv. Water Resour., 32 (8), 1154-1169.
74. Vorosmarty, C., C. Federer, and, A. Schloss, (1998), Potential evaporation functions compared on US watersheds: Possible implications for global-scale water balance and terrestrial ecosystem modeling, J. Hydrol., 207 (3-4), 147-169. (Pubitemid 28324608)
75. Wagener, T., (2003), Evaluation of catchment models, Hydrol. Process., 17 (16), 3375-3378.
76. Wagener, T., and, H. Gupta, (2005), Model identification for hydrological forecasting under uncertainty, Stochastic Environ. Res. Risk Assess., 19 (6), 378-387. (Pubitemid 41801064)
77. Wagener, T., and, N. McIntyre, (2005), Identification of rainfall-runoff models for operational applications, Hydrol. Sci. J., 50 (5), 735-751. (Pubitemid 41419666)
78. Wagener, T., D. Boyle, M. Lees, H. Wheater, H. Gupta, and, S. Sorooshian,. (2001), A framework for development and application of hydrological models, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 5 (1), 13-26. (Pubitemid 32710655)
79. Wagener, T., N. McIntyre, M. Lees, H. Wheater, and, H. Gupta, (2003), Towards reduced uncertainty in conceptual rainfall-runoff modelling: Dynamic identifiability analysis, Hydrol. Process., 17 (2), 455-476. (Pubitemid 36234589)
80. Wagener, T., H. Wheater, and, H. Gupta, (2004), Rainfall-Runoff Modelling in Gauged and Ungauged Catchments, Imp. Coll. Press, London.
81. Wagener, T., M. Sivapalan, P. Troch, and, R. Woods, (2007), Catchment classification and hydrologic similarity, Geogr. Compass, 1 (4), 901-931, doi: 10.1111/j.1749-8198.2007.00039.x.
82. Wagener, T., P. Reed, K. van Werkhoven, Y. Tang, and, Z. Zhang, (2009), Advances in the identification and evaluation of complex environmental systems models, J. Hydroinformatics, 11 (3/4), 266-281, doi: 10.2166/hydro.2009.040.
83. Wagener, T., M. Sivapalan, P. Troch, B. McGlynn, C. Harman, H. Gupta, P. Kumar, P. Rao, N. Basu, and, J. Wilson, (2010), The future of hydrology: An evolving science for a changing world, Water Resour. Res., 46, W05301, doi: 10.1029/2009WR008906.
84. Yadav, M., T. Wagener, and, H. Gupta, (2007), Regionalization of constraints on expected watershed response behavior for improved predictions in ungauged basins, Adv. Water Resour., 30 (8), 1756-1774. (Pubitemid 46712120)
85. Yang, J., (2011), Convergence and uncertainty analyses in Monte-Carlo based sensitivity analysis, Environ. Modell. Software, 26 (4), 444-457, doi: 10.1016/j.envsoft.2010.10.007.
86. Yapo, P., H. Gupta, and, S. Sorooshian, (1998), Multi-objective global optimization for hydrologic models, J. Hydrol., 204 (1-4), 83-97.
87. Yilmaz, K., H. Gupta, and, T. Wagener, (2008), A process-based diagnostic approach to model evaluation: Application to the NWS distributed hydrologic model, Water Resour. Res., 44, W09417, doi: 10.1029/2007WR006716.