Articles | Volume 23, issue 6
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-23-2601-2019
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, Oldrich Rakovec, Andrew J. Newman, Martyn P. Clark, Andrew W. Wood, Hoshin V. Gupta, and Rohini Kumar

Related authors

Technical note: What does the Standardized Streamflow Index actually reflect? Insights and implications for hydrological drought analysis
Fabián Lema, Pablo A. Mendoza, Nicolás A. Vásquez, Naoki Mizukami, Mauricio Zambrano-Bigiarini, and Ximena Vargas
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 29, 1981–2002, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-1981-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-1981-2025, 2025
Short summary
Calibrating a large-domain land/hydrology process model in the age of AI: the SUMMA CAMELS experiments
Mozhgan A. Farahani, Andrew W. Wood, Guoqiang Tang, and Naoki Mizukami
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-38,https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-38, 2025
Short summary
To what extent does river routing matter in hydrological modeling?
Nicolás Cortés-Salazar, Nicolás Vásquez, Naoki Mizukami, Pablo A. Mendoza, and Ximena Vargas
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 27, 3505–3524, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-3505-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-3505-2023, 2023
Short summary
CREST-VEC: a framework towards more accurate and realistic flood simulation across scales
Zhi Li, Shang Gao, Mengye Chen, Jonathan Gourley, Naoki Mizukami, and Yang Hong
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 6181–6196, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-6181-2022,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-6181-2022, 2022
Short summary
Revisiting parameter sensitivities in the variable infiltration capacity model across a hydroclimatic gradient
Ulises M. Sepúlveda, Pablo A. Mendoza, Naoki Mizukami, and Andrew J. Newman
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 3419–3445, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-3419-2022,https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-3419-2022, 2022
Short summary

Related subject area

Subject: Catchment hydrology | Techniques and Approaches: Modelling approaches
CONCN: a high-resolution, integrated surface water–groundwater ParFlow modeling platform of continental China
Chen Yang, Zitong Jia, Wenjie Xu, Zhongwang Wei, Xiaolang Zhang, Yiguang Zou, Jeffrey McDonnell, Laura Condon, Yongjiu Dai, and Reed Maxwell
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 29, 2201–2218, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-2201-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-2201-2025, 2025
Short summary
Evaluating the effects of topography and land use change on hydrological signatures: a comparative study of two adjacent watersheds
Haifan Liu, Haochen Yan, and Mingfu Guan
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 29, 2109–2132, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-2109-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-2109-2025, 2025
Short summary
Technical note: What does the Standardized Streamflow Index actually reflect? Insights and implications for hydrological drought analysis
Fabián Lema, Pablo A. Mendoza, Nicolás A. Vásquez, Naoki Mizukami, Mauricio Zambrano-Bigiarini, and Ximena Vargas
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 29, 1981–2002, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-1981-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-1981-2025, 2025
Short summary
Long short-term memory networks for enhancing real-time flood forecasts: a case study for an underperforming hydrologic model
Sebastian Gegenleithner, Manuel Pirker, Clemens Dorfmann, Roman Kern, and Josef Schneider
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 29, 1939–1962, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-1939-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-1939-2025, 2025
Short summary
Assessing the value of high-resolution rainfall and streamflow data for hydrological modeling: an analysis based on 63 catchments in southeast China
Mahmut Tudaji, Yi Nan, and Fuqiang Tian
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 29, 1919–1937, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-1919-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-1919-2025, 2025
Short summary

Cited articles

Addor, N., Newman, A., Mizukami, N., and Clark, M.: The CAMELS data set: catchment attributes and meteorology for large-sample studies, https://doi.org/10.5065/D6G73C3Q, 2017a. a, b
Addor, N., Newman, A. J., Mizukami, N., and Clark, M. P.: The CAMELS data set: catchment attributes and meteorology for large-sample studies, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 21, 5293–5313, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-5293-2017, 2017b. a
Berghuijs, W. R., Woods, R. A., Hutton, C. J., and Sivapalan, M.: Dominant flood generating mechanisms across the United States, Geophys. Res. Lett., 43, 4382–4390, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL068070, 2016. a
Bergström, S.: The HBV model, in: Compute Models of Watershed Hydrology, edited by: Singh, V., chap. The HBV mo, Water Resouces Publications, Highlands Ranch Co., 1995. a
Bourgin, F., Andréassian, V., Perrin, C., and Oudin, L.: Transferring global uncertainty estimates from gauged to ungauged catchments, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 19, 2535–2546, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-19-2535-2015, 2015. a
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.
Share