Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 172

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Simulating current global river runoff with a global hydrological model: model revisions, validation, and sensitivity analysis

Open access
Gosling, Simon N., Arnell, Nigel W.·2011·Hydrological Processes

Abstract

Global hydrological models (GHMs) model the land surface hydrologic dynamics of continental‐scale river basins. Here we describe one such GHM, the Macro‐scale—Probability‐Distributed Moisture model.09 (Mac‐PDM.09). The model has undergone a number of revisions since it was last applied in the hydrological literature. This paper serves to provide a detailed description of the latest version of the model. The main revisions include the following: (1) the ability for the model to be run for n repetitions, which provides more robust estimates of extreme hydrological behaviour, (2) the ability of the model to use a gridded field of coefficient of variation (CV) of daily rainfall for the stochastic disaggregation of monthly precipitation to daily precipitation, and (3) the model can now be forced with daily input climate data as well as monthly input climate data. We demonstrate the effects that each of these three revisions has on simulated runoff relative to before the revisions were applied. Importantly, we show that when Mac‐PDM.09 is forced with monthly input data, it results in a negative runoff bias relative to when daily forcings are applied, for regions of the globe where the day‐to‐day variability in relative humidity is high. The runoff bias can be up to − 80% for a small selection of catchments but the absolute magnitude of the bias may be small. As such, we recommend future applications of Mac‐PDM.09 that use monthly climate forcings acknowledge the bias as a limitation of the model. The performance of Mac‐PDM.09 is evaluated by validating simulated runoff against observed runoff for 50 catchments. We also present a sensitivity analysis that demonstrates that simulated runoff is considerably more sensitive to method of PE calculation than to perturbations in soil moisture and field capacity parameters. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/hyp.7727

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 172

Metadata

Authors
Gosling, S. N., & Arnell, N. W.
Venue
Hydrological Processes
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2011-03-16
Volume
25
Issue
7
Pages
1129-1145
ISSN
  • 0885-6087 (ISSN-L)
  • 1099-1085
OpenAlex
W2085858708
Cited by
172
References
2
FWCI
13.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.