% 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{Tajiki:877401,
author = {Tajiki, M. and Schoups, G. and Hendricks Franssen, H. J.
and Najafinejad, A. and Bahremand, A.},
title = {{R}ecursive {B}ayesian {E}stimation of {C}onceptual
{R}ainfall‐{R}unoff {M}odel {E}rrors in {R}eal‐{T}ime
{P}rediction of {S}treamflow},
journal = {Water resources research},
volume = {56},
number = {2},
issn = {1944-7973},
address = {[New York]},
publisher = {Wiley},
reportid = {FZJ-2020-02171},
pages = {e2019WR025237},
year = {2020},
abstract = {Conceptual rainfall‐runoff models account for the spatial
dynamics of hydrological processes in a basin using simple
spatially lumped storage‐flow relations. Such rough
approximations introduce model errors that are often
difficult to characterize. Here, we develop and apply a
methodology that recursively estimates and accounts for
model errors in real‐time streamflow prediction settings
by adding time‐dependent random noise to the internal
states (storages) of the hydrological model. Magnitude of
the added noise depends on a precision (inverse variance)
parameter that is estimated from rainfall‐runoff data. A
recursive Bayesian technique is used for estimation:
posteriors of hydrological parameters and states are updated
through time with an ensemble Kalman filter, whereas the
posterior of the precision parameter is updated recursively
using a novel gamma density approximation technique.
Applying this algorithm to different model error scenarios
allows identification of the main source of model errors.
The methodology is applied to short‐term streamflow
prediction with the Hymod rainfall‐runoff model in a
semi‐cold, semi‐humid basin in Iran. Results show that
(i) streamflow prediction in this snow‐dominated basin is
more affected by model errors in the slow flow than the
quick flow component of the model, (ii) accounting for model
errors in the slow flow component improves both low and high
flow predictions, and (iii) predictive performance further
improves by accounting for Hymod parameter uncertainty in
addition to model errors. Overall, accounting for model
errors increased Nash‐Sutcliffe efficiency (by $1–5\%),$
reduced mean absolute error (by $2–43\%),$ and improved
probabilistic predictive performance (by $50–80\%).$},
cin = {IBG-3},
ddc = {550},
cid = {I:(DE-Juel1)IBG-3-20101118},
pnm = {255 - Terrestrial Systems: From Observation to Prediction
(POF3-255)},
pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF3-255},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
UT = {WOS:000535672800052},
doi = {10.1029/2019WR025237},
url = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/877401},
}