How to Tailor My Process‐Based Hydrological Model? Dynamic Identifiability Analysis of Flexible Model Structures

dc.bibliographicCitation.firstPagee2020WR028042eng
dc.bibliographicCitation.issue8eng
dc.bibliographicCitation.journalTitleWater resources research : WRReng
dc.bibliographicCitation.volume56eng
dc.contributor.authorPilz, Tobias
dc.contributor.authorFrancke, Till
dc.contributor.authorBaroni, Gabriele
dc.contributor.authorBronstert, Axel
dc.date.accessioned2022-08-15T07:14:49Z
dc.date.available2022-08-15T07:14:49Z
dc.date.issued2020
dc.description.abstractIn the field of hydrological modeling, many alternative representations of natural processes exist. Choosing specific process formulations when building a hydrological model is therefore associated with a high degree of ambiguity and subjectivity. In addition, the numerical integration of the underlying differential equations and parametrization of model structures influence model performance. Identifiability analysis may provide guidance by constraining the a priori range of alternatives based on observations. In this work, a flexible simulation environment is used to build an ensemble of semidistributed, process-based hydrological model configurations with alternative process representations, numerical integration schemes, and model parametrizations in an integrated manner. The flexible simulation environment is coupled with an approach for dynamic identifiability analysis. The objective is to investigate the applicability of the framework to identify the most adequate model. While an optimal model configuration could not be clearly distinguished, interesting results were obtained when relating model identifiability with hydro-meteorological boundary conditions. For instance, we tested the Penman-Monteith and Shuttleworth & Wallace evapotranspiration models and found that the former performs better under wet and the latter under dry conditions. Parametrization of model structures plays a dominant role as it can compensate for inadequate process representations and poor numerical solvers. Therefore, it was found that numerical solvers of high order of accuracy do often, though not necessarily, lead to better model performance. The proposed coupled framework proved to be a straightforward diagnostic tool for model building and hypotheses testing and shows potential for more in-depth analysis of process implementations and catchment functioning.eng
dc.description.versionpublishedVersioneng
dc.identifier.urihttps://oa.tib.eu/renate/handle/123456789/10020
dc.identifier.urihttp://dx.doi.org/10.34657/9058
dc.language.isoengeng
dc.publisher[New York] : Wileyeng
dc.relation.doihttps://doi.org/10.1029/2020wr028042
dc.relation.essn1944-7973
dc.rights.licenseCC BY 4.0 Unportedeng
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/eng
dc.subject.ddc550eng
dc.subject.otherECHSEeng
dc.subject.otherflexible modeleng
dc.subject.otheridentifiability analysiseng
dc.subject.othermodel structureeng
dc.subject.othernumericseng
dc.subject.otherWASA-SEDeng
dc.titleHow to Tailor My Process‐Based Hydrological Model? Dynamic Identifiability Analysis of Flexible Model Structureseng
dc.typeArticleeng
dc.typeTexteng
tib.accessRightsopenAccesseng
wgl.contributorPIKeng
wgl.subjectGeowissenschafteneng
wgl.typeZeitschriftenartikeleng
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
How_to_Tailor.pdf
Size:
5.89 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description: