001     155363
005     20210129214056.0
024 7 _ |a 10.1111/gwat.12080
|2 doi
024 7 _ |a 1745-6584
|2 ISSN
024 7 _ |a 0017-467X
|2 ISSN
024 7 _ |a WOS:000339509600012
|2 WOS
024 7 _ |a altmetric:2534918
|2 altmetric
024 7 _ |a pmid:23750914
|2 pmid
037 _ _ |a FZJ-2014-04532
082 _ _ |a 550
100 1 _ |a Engelhardt, I.
|0 P:(DE-Juel1)156216
|b 0
|e Corresponding Author
|u fzj
245 _ _ |a Complexity vs. Simplicity: Groundwater Model Ranking Using Information Criteria
260 _ _ |a Oxford [u.a.]
|c 2014
|b Wiley-Blackwell
336 7 _ |a Journal Article
|b journal
|m journal
|0 PUB:(DE-HGF)16
|s 1408693625_5996
|2 PUB:(DE-HGF)
336 7 _ |a Output Types/Journal article
|2 DataCite
336 7 _ |a Journal Article
|0 0
|2 EndNote
336 7 _ |a ARTICLE
|2 BibTeX
336 7 _ |a JOURNAL_ARTICLE
|2 ORCID
336 7 _ |a article
|2 DRIVER
520 _ _ |a A groundwater model characterized by a lack of field data about hydraulic model parameters and boundary conditions combined with many observation data sets for calibration purpose was investigated concerning model uncertainty. Seven different conceptual models with a stepwise increase from 0 to 30 adjustable parameters were calibrated using PEST. Residuals, sensitivities, the Akaike information criterion (AIC and AICc), Bayesian information criterion (BIC), and Kashyap's information criterion (KIC) were calculated for a set of seven inverse calibrated models with increasing complexity. Finally, the likelihood of each model was computed. Comparing only residuals of the different conceptual models leads to an overparameterization and certainty loss in the conceptual model approach. The model employing only uncalibrated hydraulic parameters, estimated from sedimentological information, obtained the worst AIC, BIC, and KIC values. Using only sedimentological data to derive hydraulic parameters introduces a systematic error into the simulation results and cannot be recommended for generating a valuable model. For numerical investigations with high numbers of calibration data the BIC and KIC select as optimal a simpler model than the AIC. The model with 15 adjusted parameters was evaluated by AIC as the best option and obtained a likelihood of 98%. The AIC disregards the potential model structure error and the selection of the KIC is, therefore, more appropriate. Sensitivities to piezometric heads were highest for the model with only five adjustable parameters and sensitivity coefficients were directly influenced by the changes in extracted groundwater volumes.
536 _ _ |a 246 - Modelling and Monitoring Terrestrial Systems: Methods and Technologies (POF2-246)
|0 G:(DE-HGF)POF2-246
|c POF2-246
|f POF II
|x 0
536 _ _ |a 255 - Terrestrial Systems: From Observation to Prediction (POF3-255)
|0 G:(DE-HGF)POF3-255
|c POF3-255
|f POF III
|x 1
588 _ _ |a Dataset connected to CrossRef, juser.fz-juelich.de
700 1 _ |a De Aguinaga, J. G.
|0 P:(DE-HGF)0
|b 1
700 1 _ |a Mikat, H.
|0 P:(DE-HGF)0
|b 2
700 1 _ |a Schüth, C.
|0 P:(DE-HGF)0
|b 3
700 1 _ |a Liedl, R.
|0 P:(DE-HGF)0
|b 4
773 _ _ |a 10.1111/gwat.12080
|g Vol. 52, no. 4, p. 573 - 583
|0 PERI:(DE-600)2066386-9
|n 4
|p 573 - 583
|t Ground water
|v 52
|y 2014
|x 0017-467X
909 C O |o oai:juser.fz-juelich.de:155363
|p VDB
|p VDB:Earth_Environment
910 1 _ |a Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH
|0 I:(DE-588b)5008462-8
|k FZJ
|b 0
|6 P:(DE-Juel1)156216
913 2 _ |a DE-HGF
|b Marine, Küsten- und Polare Systeme
|l Terrestrische Umwelt
|1 G:(DE-HGF)POF3-250
|0 G:(DE-HGF)POF3-255
|2 G:(DE-HGF)POF3-200
|v Terrestrial Systems: From Observation to Prediction
|x 0
913 1 _ |a DE-HGF
|b Erde und Umwelt
|l Terrestrische Umwelt
|1 G:(DE-HGF)POF2-240
|0 G:(DE-HGF)POF2-246
|2 G:(DE-HGF)POF2-200
|v Modelling and Monitoring Terrestrial Systems: Methods and Technologies
|x 0
|4 G:(DE-HGF)POF
|3 G:(DE-HGF)POF2
913 1 _ |a DE-HGF
|l Terrestrische Umwelt
|1 G:(DE-HGF)POF3-250
|0 G:(DE-HGF)POF3-255
|2 G:(DE-HGF)POF3-200
|v Terrestrial Systems: From Observation to Prediction
|x 1
|4 G:(DE-HGF)POF
|3 G:(DE-HGF)POF3
|b Erde und Umwelt
914 1 _ |y 2014
915 _ _ |a JCR/ISI refereed
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0010
|2 StatID
915 _ _ |a JCR
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0100
|2 StatID
915 _ _ |a WoS
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0110
|2 StatID
|b Science Citation Index
915 _ _ |a WoS
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0111
|2 StatID
|b Science Citation Index Expanded
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0150
|2 StatID
|b Web of Science Core Collection
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0199
|2 StatID
|b Thomson Reuters Master Journal List
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0200
|2 StatID
|b SCOPUS
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0300
|2 StatID
|b Medline
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0310
|2 StatID
|b NCBI Molecular Biology Database
915 _ _ |a Nationallizenz
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0420
|2 StatID
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)1050
|2 StatID
|b BIOSIS Previews
915 _ _ |a DBCoverage
|0 StatID:(DE-HGF)1060
|2 StatID
|b Current Contents - Agriculture, Biology and Environmental Sciences
920 1 _ |0 I:(DE-Juel1)IBG-3-20101118
|k IBG-3
|l Agrosphäre
|x 0
980 _ _ |a journal
980 _ _ |a VDB
980 _ _ |a I:(DE-Juel1)IBG-3-20101118
980 _ _ |a UNRESTRICTED


LibraryCollectionCLSMajorCLSMinorLanguageAuthor
Marc 21