Preprints
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2017-121
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2017-121
06 Mar 2017
 | 06 Mar 2017
Status: this preprint has been withdrawn by the authors.

Multiple domain evaluation of watershed hydrology models

Karthik Kumarasamy and Patrick Belmont

Abstract. Watershed scale models simulating hydrology and water quality have advanced rapidly in sophistication, process representation, flexibility in model structure, and input data. Given the importance of these models to support decision-making for a wide range of environmental issues, the hydrology community is compelled to improve the metrics used to evaluate model performance. More targeted and comprehensive metrics will facilitate better and more efficient calibration and will help demonstrate that the model is useful for the intended purpose. Here we introduce a suite of new tools for model evaluation, packaged as an open-source Hydrologic Model Evaluation (HydroME) Toolbox. Specifically, we demonstrate the use of box plots to illustrate the full distribution of common model performance metrics, such as R2, use of Euclidian distance, empirical Quantile-Quantile (Q-Q) plots and flow duration curves as simple metrics to identify and localize errors in model simulations. Further, we demonstrate the use of magnitude squared coherence to compare the frequency content between observed and modeled streamflow and wavelet coherence to localize frequency mismatches in time. We provide a rationale for a hierarchical selection of parameters to adjust during calibration and recommend that modelers progress from parameters with the most uncertainty to the least uncertainty, namely starting with pure calibration parameters, followed by derived parameters, and finally measured parameters. We apply these techniques in the calibration and evaluation of models of two watersheds, the Le Sueur River Basin (2880 km2) and Root River Basin (4300 km2) in southern Minnesota, USA.

This preprint has been withdrawn.

Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this preprint. The responsibility to include appropriate place names lies with the authors.
Karthik Kumarasamy and Patrick Belmont

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

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
Karthik Kumarasamy and Patrick Belmont
Karthik Kumarasamy and Patrick Belmont

Viewed

Total article views: 2,088 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total Supplement BibTeX EndNote
1,282 733 73 2,088 266 91 106
  • HTML: 1,282
  • PDF: 733
  • XML: 73
  • Total: 2,088
  • Supplement: 266
  • BibTeX: 91
  • EndNote: 106
Views and downloads (calculated since 06 Mar 2017)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 06 Mar 2017)

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 2,026 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 2,017 with geography defined and 9 with unknown origin.
Country # Views %
  • 1
1
 
 
 
 

Cited

Latest update: 14 Dec 2024
Download

This preprint has been withdrawn.

Short summary
Watershed scale models simulating hydrology and water quality have advanced rapidly in sophistication. Given the importance of these models to support decision-making for a wide range of environmental issues, the hydrology community is compelled to improve the metrics used to evaluate model performance. We introduce a suite of new tools and metrics for model evaluation. We propose general guidelines for selecting parameters that should be included for matching predicted flow with measured flow.