English
 
Privacy Policy Disclaimer
  Advanced SearchBrowse

Item

ITEM ACTIONSEXPORT
  How to tailor my process-based hydrological model? Dynamic identifiability analysis of flexible model structures

Pilz, T., Francke, T., Baroni, G., Bronstert, A. (2020): How to tailor my process-based hydrological model? Dynamic identifiability analysis of flexible model structures. - Water Resources Research, 56, 8, e2020WR028042.
https://doi.org/10.1029/2020WR028042

Item is

Files

show Files
hide Files
:
24376oa.pdf (Publisher version), 6MB
Name:
24376oa.pdf
Description:
-
Visibility:
Public
MIME-Type / Checksum:
application/pdf / [MD5]
Technical Metadata:
Copyright Date:
-
Copyright Info:
-
License:
-

Locators

show

Creators

show
hide
 Creators:
Pilz, Tobias1, Author              
Francke, Till2, Author
Baroni, Gabriele2, Author
Bronstert, Axel2, Author
Affiliations:
1Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, ou_persistent13              
2External Organizations, ou_persistent22              

Content

show
hide
Free keywords: Wiley DEAL
 Abstract: In the field of hydrological modeling, many alternative representations of natural processes exist. Choosing specific process formulations when building a hydrological model is therefore associated with a high degree of ambiguity and subjectivity. In addition, the numerical integration of the underlying differential equations and parametrization of model structures influence model performance. Identifiability analysis may provide guidance by constraining the a priori range of alternatives based on observations. In this work, a flexible simulation environment is used to build an ensemble of semi‐distributed, process‐based hydrological model configurations with alternative process representations, numerical integration schemes, and model parametrizations in an integrated manner. The flexible simulation environment is coupled with an approach for dynamic identifiability analysis. The objective is to investigate the applicability of the framework to identify the most adequate model. While an optimal model configuration could not be clearly distinguished, interesting results were obtained when relating model identifiability with hydro‐meteorological boundary conditions. For instance, we tested the Penman‐Monteith and Shuttleworth & Wallace evapotranspiration models and found that the former performs better under wet and the latter under dry conditions. Parametrization of model structures plays a dominant role as it can compensate for inadequate process representations and poor numerical solvers. Therefore it was found that numerical solvers of high order of accuracy do often, though not necessarily, lead to better model performance. The proposed coupled framework proved to be a straightforward diagnostic tool for model building and hypotheses testing and shows potential for more in‐depth analysis of process implementations and catchment functioning.

Details

show
hide
Language(s):
 Dates: 2020-08-042020-08-242020
 Publication Status: Finally published
 Pages: -
 Publishing info: -
 Table of Contents: -
 Rev. Type: Peer
 Identifiers: DOI: 10.1029/2020WR028042
PIKDOMAIN: RD2 - Climate Resilience
MDB-ID: 2986
Working Group: Hydroclimatic Risks
 Degree: -

Event

show

Legal Case

show

Project information

show

Source 1

show
hide
Title: Water Resources Research
Source Genre: Journal, SCI, Scopus, p3
 Creator(s):
Affiliations:
Publ. Info: -
Pages: - Volume / Issue: 56 (8) Sequence Number: e2020WR028042 Start / End Page: - Identifier: CoNE: https://publications.pik-potsdam.de/cone/journals/resource/journals484
Publisher: American Geophysical Union (AGU)