Articles | Volume 23, issue 6
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 23, 2601–2614, 2019
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-23-2601-2019
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 23, 2601–2614, 2019
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-23-2601-2019

Research article 17 Jun 2019

Research article | 17 Jun 2019

On the choice of calibration metrics for “high-flow” estimation using hydrologic models

Naoki Mizukami et al.

Download

Interactive discussion

Status: closed
Status: closed
AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment
Printer-friendly Version - Printer-friendly version Supplement - Supplement

Peer-review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision
ED: Publish subject to revisions (further review by editor and referees) (29 Nov 2018) by Dimitri Solomatine
AR by Naoki Mizukami on behalf of the Authors (16 Feb 2019)  Author's response    Manuscript
ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (20 Feb 2019) by Dimitri Solomatine
RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (06 Mar 2019)
RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (23 Mar 2019)
ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (06 Apr 2019) by Dimitri Solomatine
AR by Naoki Mizukami on behalf of the Authors (18 Apr 2019)  Author's response    Manuscript
ED: Publish as is (06 May 2019) by Dimitri Solomatine
Download
Short summary
We find that Nash–Sutcliffe (NSE)-based model calibrations result in poor reproduction of high-flow events, such as the annual peak flows that are used for flood frequency estimation. The use of Kling–Gupta efficiency (KGE) results in annual peak flow estimates that are better than from NSE, with only a slight degradation in performance with respect to other related metrics.