Articles | Volume 22, issue 1
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-871-2018
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-871-2018
Research article
 | 
01 Feb 2018
Research article |  | 01 Feb 2018

State updating and calibration period selection to improve dynamic monthly streamflow forecasts for an environmental flow management application

Matthew S. Gibbs, David McInerney, Greer Humphrey, Mark A. Thyer, Holger R. Maier, Graeme C. Dandy, and Dmitri Kavetski

Viewed

Total article views: 3,299 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total Supplement BibTeX EndNote
2,250 975 74 3,299 368 73 85
  • HTML: 2,250
  • PDF: 975
  • XML: 74
  • Total: 3,299
  • Supplement: 368
  • BibTeX: 73
  • EndNote: 85
Views and downloads (calculated since 12 Jul 2017)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 12 Jul 2017)

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 3,299 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 3,164 with geography defined and 135 with unknown origin.
Country # Views %
  • 1
1
 
 
 
 

Cited

Discussed (final revised paper)

Latest update: 21 Jan 2025
Download
Short summary
This work developed models to predict how much water will be available in the next month to maximise environmental and social outcomes in southern Australia. Initialising the models with observed streamflow data, instead of warmed up by rainfall data, improved the results, even at a monthly lead time, making sure only data representative of the forecast period to develop the models were also important. If this step was ignored, and instead all data were used, poor predictions could be produced.