% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded. This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.
@ARTICLE{Breuer:3599,
author = {Breuer, L. and Huisman, J. A. and Willems, P. and Bormann,
H. and Bronstert, A. and Croke, B. and Frede, H.-G. and
Gräff, T. and Hubrechts, L. and Jakeman, A. and Kite, G.
and Lanini, J. and Leavesley, G. and Lettenmaier, D. and
Lindström, G. and Seibert, J. and Sivapalan, M. and Viney,
N.},
title = {{A}ssessing the impact of land use change on hydrology by
ensemble modeling ({LUCHEM}) {I}: model intercomparison of
current land use},
journal = {Advances in water resources},
volume = {32},
issn = {0309-1708},
address = {Amsterdam [u.a.]},
publisher = {Elsevier Science},
reportid = {PreJuSER-3599},
pages = {129 - 146},
year = {2009},
note = {This study has been supported by the Deutsche
Forschungsgemeinschaft within the scope of the Collaborative
Research Centre (SFB) 299.},
abstract = {This paper introduces the project on 'Assessing the impact
of land use change on hydrology by ensemble modeling
(LUCHEM)' that aims at investigating the envelope of
predictions on changes in hydrological fluxes due to land
use change. As part of a series of four papers, this paper
outlines the motivation and setup of LUCHEM, and presents a
model intercomparison for the present-day simulation
results. Such an intercomparison provides a valuable basis
to investigate the effects of different model structures on
model predictions and paves the ground for the analysis of
the performance of multi-model ensembles and the reliability
of the scenario predictions in companion papers. in this
study, we applied a set of 10 lumped, semi-lumped and fully
distributed hydrological models that have been previously
used in land use change studies to the low mountainous Dill
catchment. Germany. Substantial differences in model
performance were observed with Nash-Sutcliffe efficiencies
ranging from 0.53 to 0.92. Differences in model performance
were attributed to (1) model input data, (2) model
calibration and (3) the physical basis of the models. The
models were applied with two sets of input data: an original
and a homogenized data set. This homogenization of
precipitation, temperature and leaf area index was performed
to reduce the variation between the models. Homogenization
improved the comparability of model simulations and resulted
in a reduced average bias, although some variation in model
data input remained. The effect of the physical differences
between models on the long-term water balance was mainly
attributed to differences in how models represent
evapotranspiration. Semi-lumped and lumped conceptual models
slightly outperformed the fully distributed and physically
based models. This was attributed to the automatic model
calibration typically used for this type of models. Overall,
however, we conclude that there was no superior model if
several measures of model performance are considered and
that all models are suitable to participate in further
multi-model ensemble set-ups and land use change scenario
investigations. (C) 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.},
keywords = {J (WoSType)},
cin = {ICG-4},
ddc = {550},
cid = {I:(DE-Juel1)VDB793},
pnm = {Terrestrische Umwelt},
pid = {G:(DE-Juel1)FUEK407},
shelfmark = {Water Resources},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
UT = {WOS:000264512000002},
doi = {10.1016/j.advwatres.2008.10.003},
url = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/3599},
}