000003602 001__ 3602
000003602 005__ 20180208230107.0
000003602 0247_ $$2DOI$$a10.1016/j.advwatres.2008.05.006
000003602 0247_ $$2WOS$$aWOS:000264512000003
000003602 037__ $$aPreJuSER-3602
000003602 041__ $$aeng
000003602 082__ $$a550
000003602 084__ $$2WoS$$aWater Resources
000003602 1001_ $$0P:(DE-HGF)0$$aViney, N.$$b0
000003602 245__ $$aAssesing the Impact of Land Use Change on Hydrology by Ensemble Modeling (LUCHEM) II: Ensemble Combinations and Predictions
000003602 260__ $$aAmsterdam [u.a.]$$bElsevier Science$$c2009
000003602 300__ $$a147 - 158
000003602 3367_ $$0PUB:(DE-HGF)16$$2PUB:(DE-HGF)$$aJournal Article
000003602 3367_ $$2DataCite$$aOutput Types/Journal article
000003602 3367_ $$00$$2EndNote$$aJournal Article
000003602 3367_ $$2BibTeX$$aARTICLE
000003602 3367_ $$2ORCID$$aJOURNAL_ARTICLE
000003602 3367_ $$2DRIVER$$aarticle
000003602 440_0 $$020263$$aAdvances in Water Resources$$v32$$x0309-1708$$y2
000003602 500__ $$aThis study has been supported by the German Science Foundation within the scope of the Collaborative Research Centre (SFB) 299. The authors thank Lu Zhang and Santosh Aryal for their comments on the manuscript.
000003602 520__ $$aThis paper reports on a project to compare predictions from a range of catchment models applied to a mesoscale river basin in central Germany and to assess various ensemble predictions of catchment streamflow. The models encompass a large range in inherent complexity and input requirements. In approximate order of decreasing complexity, they are DHSVM, MIKE-SHE, TOPLATS, WASIM-ETH, SWAT, PRMS, SLURP, HBV, LASCAM and IHACRES. The models are calibrated twice using different sets of input data. The two predictions from each model are then combined by simple averaging to produce a single-model ensemble. The 10 resulting single-model ensembles are combined in various ways to produce multi-model ensemble predictions. Both the single-model ensembles and the multi-model ensembles are shown to give predictions that are generally superior to those of their respective constituent models, both during a 7-year calibration period and a 9-year validation period. This occurs despite a considerable disparity in performance of the individual models. Even the weakest of models is shown to contribute useful information to the ensembles they are part of. The best model combination methods are a trimmed mean (constructed using the central four or six predictions each day) and a weighted mean ensemble (with weights calculated from calibration performance) that places relatively large weights on the better performing models. Conditional ensembles. in which separate model weights are used in different system states (e.g. summer and winter, high and low flows) generally yield little improvement over the weighted mean ensemble. However a conditional ensemble that discriminates between rising and receding flows shows moderate improvement. An analysis of ensemble predictions shows that the best ensembles are not necessarily those containing the best individual models. Conversely, it appears that some models that predict well individually do not necessarily combine well with other models in multi-model ensembles. The reasons behind these observations may relate to the effects of the weighting schemes, non-stationarity of the climate series and possible cross-correlations between models. Crown Copyright (C) 2008 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
000003602 536__ $$0G:(DE-Juel1)FUEK407$$2G:(DE-HGF)$$aTerrestrische Umwelt$$cP24$$x0
000003602 588__ $$aDataset connected to Web of Science
000003602 65320 $$2Author$$aMulti-model ensembles
000003602 65320 $$2Author$$aSingle-model ensembles
000003602 65320 $$2Author$$aCatchment modelling
000003602 65320 $$2Author$$aEnsemble combination
000003602 65320 $$2Author$$aUncertainty
000003602 65320 $$2Author$$aLand use change
000003602 650_7 $$2WoSType$$aJ
000003602 7001_ $$0P:(DE-HGF)0$$aBormann, H.$$b1
000003602 7001_ $$0P:(DE-HGF)0$$aBreuer, L.$$b2
000003602 7001_ $$0P:(DE-HGF)0$$aBronstert, A.$$b3
000003602 7001_ $$0P:(DE-HGF)0$$aCroke, B.$$b4
000003602 7001_ $$0P:(DE-HGF)0$$aFrede, H.-G.$$b5
000003602 7001_ $$0P:(DE-HGF)0$$aGräff, T.$$b6
000003602 7001_ $$0P:(DE-HGF)0$$aHubrechts, L.$$b7
000003602 7001_ $$0P:(DE-Juel1)129472$$aHuisman, J. A.$$b8$$uFZJ
000003602 7001_ $$0P:(DE-HGF)0$$aJakeman, A.$$b9
000003602 7001_ $$0P:(DE-HGF)0$$aKite, G.$$b10
000003602 7001_ $$0P:(DE-HGF)0$$aLanini, J.$$b11
000003602 7001_ $$0P:(DE-HGF)0$$aLeavesley, G.$$b12
000003602 7001_ $$0P:(DE-HGF)0$$aLettenmaier, D.$$b13
000003602 7001_ $$0P:(DE-HGF)0$$aLindström, G.$$b14
000003602 7001_ $$0P:(DE-HGF)0$$aSeibert, J.$$b15
000003602 7001_ $$0P:(DE-HGF)0$$aSivapalan, M.$$b16
000003602 7001_ $$0P:(DE-HGF)0$$aWillems, P.$$b17
000003602 773__ $$0PERI:(DE-600)2023320-6$$a10.1016/j.advwatres.2008.05.006$$gVol. 32, p. 147 - 158$$p147 - 158$$q32<147 - 158$$tAdvances in water resources$$v32$$x0309-1708$$y2009
000003602 8567_ $$uhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2008.05.006
000003602 909CO $$ooai:juser.fz-juelich.de:3602$$pVDB
000003602 915__ $$0StatID:(DE-HGF)0010$$aJCR/ISI refereed
000003602 9141_ $$y2009
000003602 9131_ $$0G:(DE-Juel1)FUEK407$$aDE-HGF$$bErde und Umwelt$$kP24$$lTerrestrische Umwelt$$vTerrestrische Umwelt$$x0
000003602 9201_ $$0I:(DE-Juel1)VDB793$$d31.10.2010$$gICG$$kICG-4$$lAgrosphäre$$x1
000003602 970__ $$aVDB:(DE-Juel1)109802
000003602 980__ $$aVDB
000003602 980__ $$aConvertedRecord
000003602 980__ $$ajournal
000003602 980__ $$aI:(DE-Juel1)IBG-3-20101118
000003602 980__ $$aUNRESTRICTED
000003602 981__ $$aI:(DE-Juel1)IBG-3-20101118