Journal cover Journal topic
Hydrology and Earth System Sciences An interactive open-access journal of the European Geosciences Union
Journal topic

Journal metrics

Journal metrics

  • IF value: 4.936 IF 4.936
  • IF 5-year value: 5.615 IF 5-year
    5.615
  • CiteScore value: 4.94 CiteScore
    4.94
  • SNIP value: 1.612 SNIP 1.612
  • IPP value: 4.70 IPP 4.70
  • SJR value: 2.134 SJR 2.134
  • Scimago H <br class='hide-on-tablet hide-on-mobile'>index value: 107 Scimago H
    index 107
  • h5-index value: 63 h5-index 63
Volume 20, issue 9
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 20, 3745–3763, 2016
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-20-3745-2016
© Author(s) 2016. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 20, 3745–3763, 2016
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-20-3745-2016
© Author(s) 2016. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Research article 12 Sep 2016

Research article | 12 Sep 2016

Disentangling timing and amplitude errors in streamflow simulations

Simon Paul Seibert et al.
Related authors  
Unravelling abiotic and biotic controls on the seasonal water balance using data-driven dimensionless diagnostics
Simon Paul Seibert, Conrad Jackisch, Uwe Ehret, Laurent Pfister, and Erwin Zehe
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 21, 2817–2841, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-2817-2017,https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-2817-2017, 2017
Short summary
Related subject area  
Subject: Catchment hydrology | Techniques and Approaches: Uncertainty analysis
A likelihood framework for deterministic hydrological models and the importance of non-stationary autocorrelation
Lorenz Ammann, Fabrizio Fenicia, and Peter Reichert
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 23, 2147–2172, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-23-2147-2019,https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-23-2147-2019, 2019
Short summary
Technical note: Analytical sensitivity analysis and uncertainty estimation of baseflow index calculated by a two-component hydrograph separation method with conductivity as a tracer
Weifei Yang, Changlai Xiao, and Xiujuan Liang
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 23, 1103–1112, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-23-1103-2019,https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-23-1103-2019, 2019
Short summary
Understanding the water cycle over the upper Tarim Basin: retrospecting the estimated discharge bias to atmospheric variables and model structure
Xudong Zhou, Jan Polcher, Tao Yang, Yukiko Hirabayashi, and Trung Nguyen-Quang
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 22, 6087–6108, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-6087-2018,https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-6087-2018, 2018
Short summary
The effect of input data resolution and complexity on the uncertainty of hydrological predictions in a humid vegetated watershed
Linh Hoang, Rajith Mukundan, Karen E. B. Moore, Emmet M. Owens, and Tammo S. Steenhuis
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 22, 5947–5965, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-5947-2018,https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-5947-2018, 2018
Short summary
Parameter uncertainty analysis for an operational hydrological model using residual-based and limits of acceptability approaches
Aynom T. Teweldebrhan, John F. Burkhart, and Thomas V. Schuler
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 22, 5021–5039, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-5021-2018,https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-5021-2018, 2018
Cited articles  
Attinger, S.: Generalized Coarse Graining Procedures for Flow in Porous Media, Comput. Geosci., 7, 253–273, https://doi.org/10.1023/B:COMG.0000005243.73381.e3, 2003.
Beven, K. and Binley, A.: The future of distributed models: model calibration and uncertainty prediction, Hydrol. Process., 6, 279–298, https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.3360060305, 1992.
Biondi, D., Freni, G., Iacobellis, V., Mascaro, G., and Montanari, A.: Validation of hydrological models: Conceptual basis, methodological approaches and a proposal for a code of practice, Phys. Chem. Earth, 42–44, 70–76, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pce.2011.07.037, 2012.
Blume, T., Zehe, E., and Bronstert, A.: Rainfall-runoff response, event-based runoff coefficients and hydrograph separation, Hydrolog. Sci. J., 52, 843–862, https://doi.org/10.1623/hysj.52.5.843, 2007.
Publications Copernicus
Download
Short summary
While the assessment of "vertical" (magnitude) errors of streamflow simulations is standard practice, "horizontal" (timing) errors are rarely considered. To assess their role, we propose a method to quantify both errors simultaneously which closely resembles visual hydrograph comparison. Our results reveal differences in time–magnitude error statistics for different flow conditions. The proposed method thus offers novel perspectives for model diagnostics and evaluation.
While the assessment of "vertical" (magnitude) errors of streamflow simulations is standard...
Citation