001     3602
005     20180208230107.0
024 7 _ |2 DOI
|a 10.1016/j.advwatres.2008.05.006
024 7 _ |2 WOS
|a WOS:000264512000003
037 _ _ |a PreJuSER-3602
041 _ _ |a eng
082 _ _ |a 550
084 _ _ |2 WoS
|a Water Resources
100 1 _ |0 P:(DE-HGF)0
|a Viney, N.
|b 0
245 _ _ |a Assesing the Impact of Land Use Change on Hydrology by Ensemble Modeling (LUCHEM) II: Ensemble Combinations and Predictions
260 _ _ |a Amsterdam [u.a.]
|b Elsevier Science
|c 2009
300 _ _ |a 147 - 158
336 7 _ |a Journal Article
|0 PUB:(DE-HGF)16
|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
440 _ 0 |0 20263
|a Advances in Water Resources
|v 32
|x 0309-1708
|y 2
500 _ _ |a This 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.
520 _ _ |a This 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.
536 _ _ |0 G:(DE-Juel1)FUEK407
|2 G:(DE-HGF)
|a Terrestrische Umwelt
|c P24
|x 0
588 _ _ |a Dataset connected to Web of Science
650 _ 7 |2 WoSType
|a J
653 2 0 |2 Author
|a Multi-model ensembles
653 2 0 |2 Author
|a Single-model ensembles
653 2 0 |2 Author
|a Catchment modelling
653 2 0 |2 Author
|a Ensemble combination
653 2 0 |2 Author
|a Uncertainty
653 2 0 |2 Author
|a Land use change
700 1 _ |0 P:(DE-HGF)0
|a Bormann, H.
|b 1
700 1 _ |0 P:(DE-HGF)0
|a Breuer, L.
|b 2
700 1 _ |0 P:(DE-HGF)0
|a Bronstert, A.
|b 3
700 1 _ |0 P:(DE-HGF)0
|a Croke, B.
|b 4
700 1 _ |0 P:(DE-HGF)0
|a Frede, H.-G.
|b 5
700 1 _ |0 P:(DE-HGF)0
|a Gräff, T.
|b 6
700 1 _ |0 P:(DE-HGF)0
|a Hubrechts, L.
|b 7
700 1 _ |0 P:(DE-Juel1)129472
|a Huisman, J. A.
|b 8
|u FZJ
700 1 _ |0 P:(DE-HGF)0
|a Jakeman, A.
|b 9
700 1 _ |0 P:(DE-HGF)0
|a Kite, G.
|b 10
700 1 _ |0 P:(DE-HGF)0
|a Lanini, J.
|b 11
700 1 _ |0 P:(DE-HGF)0
|a Leavesley, G.
|b 12
700 1 _ |0 P:(DE-HGF)0
|a Lettenmaier, D.
|b 13
700 1 _ |0 P:(DE-HGF)0
|a Lindström, G.
|b 14
700 1 _ |0 P:(DE-HGF)0
|a Seibert, J.
|b 15
700 1 _ |0 P:(DE-HGF)0
|a Sivapalan, M.
|b 16
700 1 _ |0 P:(DE-HGF)0
|a Willems, P.
|b 17
773 _ _ |0 PERI:(DE-600)2023320-6
|a 10.1016/j.advwatres.2008.05.006
|g Vol. 32, p. 147 - 158
|p 147 - 158
|q 32<147 - 158
|t Advances in water resources
|v 32
|x 0309-1708
|y 2009
856 7 _ |u http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2008.05.006
909 C O |o oai:juser.fz-juelich.de:3602
|p VDB
913 1 _ |0 G:(DE-Juel1)FUEK407
|a DE-HGF
|b Erde und Umwelt
|k P24
|l Terrestrische Umwelt
|v Terrestrische Umwelt
|x 0
914 1 _ |y 2009
915 _ _ |0 StatID:(DE-HGF)0010
|a JCR/ISI refereed
920 1 _ |0 I:(DE-Juel1)VDB793
|d 31.10.2010
|g ICG
|k ICG-4
|l Agrosphäre
|x 1
970 _ _ |a VDB:(DE-Juel1)109802
980 _ _ |a VDB
980 _ _ |a ConvertedRecord
980 _ _ |a journal
980 _ _ |a I:(DE-Juel1)IBG-3-20101118
980 _ _ |a UNRESTRICTED
981 _ _ |a I:(DE-Juel1)IBG-3-20101118


LibraryCollectionCLSMajorCLSMinorLanguageAuthor
Marc 21