Journal cover Journal topic
Hydrology and Earth System Sciences An interactive open-access journal of the European Geosciences Union
Journal topic

Journal metrics

IF value: 5.153
IF5.153
IF 5-year value: 5.460
IF 5-year
5.460
CiteScore value: 7.8
CiteScore
7.8
SNIP value: 1.623
SNIP1.623
IPP value: 4.91
IPP4.91
SJR value: 2.092
SJR2.092
Scimago H <br class='widget-line-break'>index value: 123
Scimago H
index
123
h5-index value: 65
h5-index65
Volume 20, issue 9
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 20, 3745–3763, 2016
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-20-3745-2016
© Author(s) 2016. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 20, 3745–3763, 2016
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-20-3745-2016
© Author(s) 2016. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Research article 12 Sep 2016

Research article | 12 Sep 2016

Disentangling timing and amplitude errors in streamflow simulations

Simon Paul Seibert et al.

Related authors

Unravelling abiotic and biotic controls on the seasonal water balance using data-driven dimensionless diagnostics
Simon Paul Seibert, Conrad Jackisch, Uwe Ehret, Laurent Pfister, and Erwin Zehe
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 21, 2817–2841, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-2817-2017,https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-2817-2017, 2017
Short summary

Related subject area

Subject: Catchment hydrology | Techniques and Approaches: Uncertainty analysis
Coupled machine learning and the limits of acceptability approach applied in parameter identification for a distributed hydrological model
Aynom T. Teweldebrhan, Thomas V. Schuler, John F. Burkhart, and Morten Hjorth-Jensen
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 24, 4641–4658, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-4641-2020,https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-4641-2020, 2020
A systematic assessment of uncertainties in large-scale soil loss estimation from different representations of USLE input factors – a case study for Kenya and Uganda
Christoph Schürz, Bano Mehdi, Jens Kiesel, Karsten Schulz, and Mathew Herrnegger
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 24, 4463–4489, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-4463-2020,https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-4463-2020, 2020
Short summary
Technical note: Uncertainty in multi-source partitioning using large tracer data sets
Alicia Correa, Diego Ochoa-Tocachi, and Christian Birkel
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 23, 5059–5068, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-23-5059-2019,https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-23-5059-2019, 2019
Short summary
Assessment of climate change impact and difference on the river runoff in four basins in China under 1.5 and 2.0 °C global warming
Hongmei Xu, Lüliu Liu, Yong Wang, Sheng Wang, Ying Hao, Jingjin Ma, and Tong Jiang
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 23, 4219–4231, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-23-4219-2019,https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-23-4219-2019, 2019
Short summary
A likelihood framework for deterministic hydrological models and the importance of non-stationary autocorrelation
Lorenz Ammann, Fabrizio Fenicia, and Peter Reichert
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 23, 2147–2172, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-23-2147-2019,https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-23-2147-2019, 2019
Short summary

Cited articles

Attinger, S.: Generalized Coarse Graining Procedures for Flow in Porous Media, Comput. Geosci., 7, 253–273, https://doi.org/10.1023/B:COMG.0000005243.73381.e3, 2003.
Beven, K. and Binley, A.: The future of distributed models: model calibration and uncertainty prediction, Hydrol. Process., 6, 279–298, https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.3360060305, 1992.
Biondi, D., Freni, G., Iacobellis, V., Mascaro, G., and Montanari, A.: Validation of hydrological models: Conceptual basis, methodological approaches and a proposal for a code of practice, Phys. Chem. Earth, 42–44, 70–76, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pce.2011.07.037, 2012.
Blume, T., Zehe, E., and Bronstert, A.: Rainfall-runoff response, event-based runoff coefficients and hydrograph separation, Hydrolog. Sci. J., 52, 843–862, https://doi.org/10.1623/hysj.52.5.843, 2007.
Publications Copernicus
Download
Short summary
While the assessment of "vertical" (magnitude) errors of streamflow simulations is standard practice, "horizontal" (timing) errors are rarely considered. To assess their role, we propose a method to quantify both errors simultaneously which closely resembles visual hydrograph comparison. Our results reveal differences in time–magnitude error statistics for different flow conditions. The proposed method thus offers novel perspectives for model diagnostics and evaluation.
While the assessment of "vertical" (magnitude) errors of streamflow simulations is standard...
Citation