Articles | Volume 25, issue 2
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-1069-2021
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-1069-2021
Research article
 | 
02 Mar 2021
Research article |  | 02 Mar 2021

Behind the scenes of streamflow model performance

Laurène J. E. Bouaziz, Fabrizio Fenicia, Guillaume Thirel, Tanja de Boer-Euser, Joost Buitink, Claudia C. Brauer, Jan De Niel, Benjamin J. Dewals, Gilles Drogue, Benjamin Grelier, Lieke A. Melsen, Sotirios Moustakas, Jiri Nossent, Fernando Pereira, Eric Sprokkereef, Jasper Stam, Albrecht H. Weerts, Patrick Willems, Hubert H. G. Savenije, and Markus Hrachowitz

Viewed

Total article views: 5,407 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total Supplement BibTeX EndNote
3,893 1,452 62 5,407 146 82 72
  • HTML: 3,893
  • PDF: 1,452
  • XML: 62
  • Total: 5,407
  • Supplement: 146
  • BibTeX: 82
  • EndNote: 72
Views and downloads (calculated since 28 Apr 2020)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 28 Apr 2020)

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 5,407 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 4,938 with geography defined and 469 with unknown origin.
Country # Views %
  • 1
1
 
 
 
 

Cited

Latest update: 19 Jul 2024
Download
Short summary
We quantify the differences in internal states and fluxes of 12 process-based models with similar streamflow performance and assess their plausibility using remotely sensed estimates of evaporation, snow cover, soil moisture and total storage anomalies. The dissimilarities in internal process representation imply that these models cannot all simultaneously be close to reality. Therefore, we invite modelers to evaluate their models using multiple variables and to rely on multi-model studies.