The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Catchment properties, function, and conceptual model representation: is there a correspondence?
Abstract
This study investigates the possible correspondence between catchment structure, as represented by perceptual hydrological models developed from fieldwork investigations, and mathematical model structures, selected on the basis of reproducing observed catchment hydrographs. Three Luxembourgish headwater catchments are considered, where previous fieldwork suggested distinct flow‐generating mechanisms and hydrological dynamics. A set of lumped conceptual model structures are hypothesized and implemented using the SUPERFLEX framework. Following parameter calibration, the model performance is examined in terms of predictive accuracy, quantification of uncertainty, and the ability to reproduce the flow–duration curve signature. Our key research question is whether differences in the performance of the conceptual model structures can be interpreted based on the dominant catchment processes suggested from fieldwork investigations. For example, we propose that the permeable bedrock and the presence of multiple aquifers in the Huewelerbach catchment may explain the superior performance of model structures with storage elements connected in parallel. Conversely, model structures with serial connections perform better in the Weierbach and Wollefsbach catchments, which are characterized by impermeable bedrock and dominated by lateral flow. The presence of threshold dynamics in the Weierbach and Wollefsbach catchments may favour nonlinear models, while the smoother dynamics of the larger Huewelerbach catchment were suitably reproduced by linear models. It is also shown how hydrologically distinct processes can be effectively described by the same mathematical model components. Major research questions are reviewed, including the correspondence between hydrological processes at different levels of scale and how best to synthesize the experimentalist's and modeller's perspectives. Copyright © 2013 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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
BEVEN, K. J., & KIRKBY, M. J. (1979) · Hydrological Sciences Bulletin · doi:10.1080/02626667909491834 · Cited by 6,670
Cited by
The CAMELS data set: catchment attributes and meteorology for large-sample studies
(2017) · doi:10.5194/hess-21-5293-2017 · Cited by 1,037
Transit times—the link between hydrology and water quality at the catchment scale
Hrachowitz, M., Benettin, P., van Breukelen, B. M., Fovet, O., Howden, N. J. K., Ruiz, L., van der Velde, Y., & Wade, A. J. (2016) · WIREs Water · doi:10.1002/wat2.1155 · Cited by 346
The sensitivity of simulated streamflow to individual hydrologic processes across North America
Mai, J., Craig, J. R., Tolson, B. A., & Arsenault, R. (2022) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-022-28010-7 · Cited by 63
Metadata
- Authors
- Fenicia, F., Kavetski, D., Savenije, H. H. G., Clark, M. P., Schoups, G., Pfister, L., & Freer, J.
- Venue
- Hydrological Processes
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2013-04-18
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 2451-2467
- ISSN
- 0885-6087 (ISSN-L)
- 1099-1085
- OpenAlex
- W2156589291
- Cited by
- 178
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 10.41
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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.