Preprints
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2018-65
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2018-65
19 Feb 2018
 | 19 Feb 2018
Status: this preprint has been withdrawn by the authors.

On the effectiveness of recession analysis methods for capturing the characteristic storage-discharge relation: An intercomparison study

Xing Chen, Mukesh Kumar, Stefano Basso, and Marco Marani

Abstract. Storage-discharge (S-Q) relations are widely used to derive watershed properties and predict streamflow responses. These relations are often obtained using different recession analysis methods, which vary in recession period identification criteria and Q vs. −dQ/dt fitting scheme. Although previous studies have indicated that different recession analysis methods can result in significantly different S-Q relations, several challenges remain regarding the evaluation of relative effectiveness of these methods in obtaining the characteristic S-Q relation. Here we demonstrated these challenges and presented a new control setup based experimental approach to compare four recession analysis methods. Results indicated that irregular binning and event-based methods show superior performance at obtaining the characteristic S-Q relation and reconstructing streamflow, while lower envelope method performs the worst. Notably, accuracy of the methods is influenced by the extent of scatter in the ln(−dQ/dt) vs. ln(Q) plot. In addition, the derived S-Q relation was very sensitive to the criteria used for identifying recession periods. These results raise a warning sign against indiscriminate application of recession analysis methods and derived S-Q relations for watershed characterizations or hydrologic simulations. Thorough evaluation of representativeness of the derived S-Q relation should be performed before it is used for hydrologic analysis.

This preprint has been withdrawn.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.
Xing Chen, Mukesh Kumar, Stefano Basso, and Marco Marani

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
Xing Chen, Mukesh Kumar, Stefano Basso, and Marco Marani
Xing Chen, Mukesh Kumar, Stefano Basso, and Marco Marani

Viewed

Total article views: 2,286 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total Supplement BibTeX EndNote
1,800 432 54 2,286 164 74 69
  • HTML: 1,800
  • PDF: 432
  • XML: 54
  • Total: 2,286
  • Supplement: 164
  • BibTeX: 74
  • EndNote: 69
Views and downloads (calculated since 19 Feb 2018)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 19 Feb 2018)

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 1,967 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 1,916 with geography defined and 51 with unknown origin.
Country # Views %
  • 1
1
 
 
 
 

Cited

Latest update: 29 Jun 2024
Download

This preprint has been withdrawn.