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

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
Evaluating a reservoir parametrization in the vector-based global routing model mizuRoute (v2.0.1) for Earth system model coupling
Inne Vanderkelen, Shervan Gharari, Naoki Mizukami, Martyn P. Clark, David M. Lawrence, Sean Swenson, Yadu Pokhrel, Naota Hanasaki, Ann van Griensven, and Wim Thiery
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 4163–4192, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-4163-2022,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-4163-2022, 2022
Short summary
Flood spatial coherence, triggers, and performance in hydrological simulations: large-sample evaluation of four streamflow-calibrated models
Manuela I. Brunner, Lieke A. Melsen, Andrew W. Wood, Oldrich Rakovec, Naoki Mizukami, Wouter J. M. Knoben, and Martyn P. Clark
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 105–119, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-105-2021,https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-105-2021, 2021
Short summary

Related subject area

Subject: Catchment hydrology | Techniques and Approaches: Modelling approaches
To bucket or not to bucket? Analyzing the performance and interpretability of hybrid hydrological models with dynamic parameterization
Eduardo Acuña Espinoza, Ralf Loritz, Manuel Álvarez Chaves, Nicole Bäuerle, and Uwe Ehret
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 2705–2719, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-2705-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-2705-2024, 2024
Short summary
Widespread flooding dynamics under climate change: characterising floods using grid-based hydrological modelling and regional climate projections
Adam Griffin, Alison L. Kay, Paul Sayers, Victoria Bell, Elizabeth Stewart, and Sam Carr
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 2635–2650, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-2635-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-2635-2024, 2024
Short summary
HESS Opinions: The sword of Damocles of the impossible flood
Alberto Montanari, Bruno Merz, and Günter Blöschl
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 2603–2615, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-2603-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-2603-2024, 2024
Short summary
Metamorphic testing of machine learning and conceptual hydrologic models
Peter Reichert, Kai Ma, Marvin Höge, Fabrizio Fenicia, Marco Baity-Jesi, Dapeng Feng, and Chaopeng Shen
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 2505–2529, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-2505-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-2505-2024, 2024
Short summary
The influence of human activities on streamflow reductions during the megadrought in central Chile
Nicolás Álamos, Camila Alvarez-Garreton, Ariel Muñoz, and Álvaro González-Reyes
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 2483–2503, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-2483-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-2483-2024, 2024
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.