ArticleWater resources research2020
The Added Value of Different Data Types for Calibrating and Testing a Hydrologic Model in a Small Catchment.
Article in Water resources research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- PatagoniaMet: A multi-source hydrometeorological dataset for Western Patagonia.Scientific data · 2024Article
- The sensitivity of simulated streamflow to individual hydrologic processes across North America.Nature communications · 2022Article
- The Added Value of Different Data Types for Calibrating and Testing a Hydrologic Model in a Small Catchment.Water resources research · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study investigated the added value of different data for calibrating a runoff model for small basins. The analysis was performed in the 66 ha Hydrological Open Air Laboratory, in Austria. An Hydrologiska Byråns Vattenbalansavdelning (HBV) type, spatially lumped hydrologic model was parameterized following two approaches. First, the model was calibrated using only runoff data. Second, a step-by-step approach was followed, where the modules of the model (snow, soil moisture, and runoff generation) were calibrated using measurements of runoff and model state variables and output fluxes. These measurements comprised laser-based measurements of precipitation, satellite and camera observations of snow, ultrasonic measurements of snow depth, eddy covariance measurements of evapotranspiration, time domain transmissometry-based soil moisture measurements, time-lapse photography of overland flow, and groundwater level measurements by piezometers. The two model parameterizations were evaluated on annual, seasonal, and daily time scales, in terms of how well they simulated snow, soil moisture, evapotranspiration, overland flow, storage change in the saturated zone, and runoff. Using the proposed step-by-step approach, the relative runoff volume errors in the calibration and validation periods were 0.00 and -0.01, the monthly Pearson correlation coefficients were 0.92 and 0.82, and the daily logarithmic Nash Sutcliffe efficiencies were 0.59 and 0.18, respectively. By using different sources of data besides runoff, the overall process consistency improved, compared to the case when only runoff was used for calibration. Soil moisture and evapotranspiration observations had the largest influence on simulated runoff, while the parameterization of the snow and runoff generation modules had a smaller influence.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.