impact of modellers' decisions on hydrological a priori predictions
Clicks: 86
ID: 213063
2014
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Steady Performance
25.5
/100
86 views
23 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
SteadyRanked #273 of 303 articles by views in materials research bulletin
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 303 in total.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
In practice, the catchment hydrologist is often confronted with the task of
predicting discharge without having the needed records for calibration.
Here, we report the discharge predictions of 10 modellers – using the
model of their choice – for the man-made Chicken Creek catchment (6 ha,
northeast Germany, Gerwin et al., 2009b) and we analyse how well they
improved their prediction in three steps based on adding information prior
to each following step. The modellers predicted the catchment's hydrological
response in its initial phase without having access to the observed records.
They used conceptually different physically based models and their modelling
experience differed largely. Hence, they encountered two problems: (i) to
simulate discharge for an ungauged catchment and (ii) using models that were
developed for catchments, which are not in a state of landscape
transformation. The prediction exercise was organized in three steps: (1)
for the first prediction the modellers received a basic data set
describing the catchment to a degree somewhat more complete than usually
available for a priori predictions of ungauged catchments; they did not
obtain information on stream flow, soil moisture, nor groundwater response
and had therefore to guess the initial conditions; (2) before the second
prediction they inspected the catchment on-site and discussed their first
prediction attempt; (3) for their third prediction they were offered
additional data by charging them pro forma with the costs for obtaining this
additional information.
Holländer et al. (2009) discussed the range of predictions obtained in step (1). Here, we detail the modeller's assumptions and decisions in accounting for the various processes. We document the prediction progress as well as the learning process resulting from the availability of added information. For the second and third steps, the progress in prediction quality is evaluated in relation to individual modelling experience and costs of added information.
In this qualitative analysis of a statistically small number of predictions we learned (i) that soft information such as the modeller's system understanding is as important as the model itself (hard information), (ii) that the sequence of modelling steps matters (field visit, interactions between differently experienced experts, choice of model, selection of available data, and methods for parameter guessing), and (iii) that added process understanding can be as efficient as adding data for improving parameters needed to satisfy model requirements.
Holländer et al. (2009) discussed the range of predictions obtained in step (1). Here, we detail the modeller's assumptions and decisions in accounting for the various processes. We document the prediction progress as well as the learning process resulting from the availability of added information. For the second and third steps, the progress in prediction quality is evaluated in relation to individual modelling experience and costs of added information.
In this qualitative analysis of a statistically small number of predictions we learned (i) that soft information such as the modeller's system understanding is as important as the model itself (hard information), (ii) that the sequence of modelling steps matters (field visit, interactions between differently experienced experts, choice of model, selection of available data, and methods for parameter guessing), and (iii) that added process understanding can be as efficient as adding data for improving parameters needed to satisfy model requirements.
| Reference Key |
hollnder2014hydrologyimpact
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | ;H. M. Holländer;H. Bormann;T. Blume;W. Buytaert;G. B. Chirico;J.-F. Exbrayat;D. Gustafsson;H. Hölzel;T. Krauße;P. Kraft;S. Stoll;G. Blöschl;H. Flühler |
| Journal | materials research bulletin |
| Year | 2014 |
| DOI |
10.5194/hess-18-2065-2014
|
| URL | |
| Keywords |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.