The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Understanding uncertainty in distributed flash flood forecasting for semiarid regions
Open accessAbstract
Semiarid flash floods pose a significant danger for life and property in many dry regions around the world. One effective way to mitigate flood risk lies in implementing a real‐time forecast and warning system based on a rainfall‐runoff model. This study used a semiarid, physics‐based, and spatially distributed watershed model driven by high‐resolution radar rainfall input to evaluate such a system. The predictive utility of the model and dominant sources of uncertainty were investigated for several runoff events within the U.S. Department of Agriculture Agricultural Research Service Walnut Gulch Experimental Watershed located in the southwestern United States. Sources of uncertainty considered were rainfall estimates, watershed model parameters, and initial soil moisture conditions. Results derived through a variance‐based comprehensive global sensitivity analysis indicated that the high predictive uncertainty in the modeled response was heavily dominated by biases in the radar rainfall depth estimates. Key model parameters and initial model states were identified, and we generally found that modeled hillslope characteristics are more influential than channel characteristics in small semiarid basins. We also observed an inconsistency in the parameter sets identified as behavioral for different events, which suggests that model calibration to historical data is unlikely to consistently improve predictive performance for different events and that real‐time parameter updating may be preferable.
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
Making best use of model evaluations to compute sensitivity indices
Saltelli, A. (2002) · Computer Physics Communications · doi:10.1016/s0010-4655(02)00280-1 · Cited by 2,228
Beven, K., & Freer, J. (2001) · Journal of Hydrology · doi:10.1016/s0022-1694(01)00421-8 · Cited by 2,189
Cited by
A review of advances in flash flood forecasting
Hapuarachchi, H. A. P., Wang, Q. J., & Pagano, T. C. (2011) · Hydrological Processes · doi:10.1002/hyp.8040 · Cited by 560
Benchmarking observational uncertainties for hydrology: rainfall, river discharge and water quality
McMillan, H., Krueger, T., & Freer, J. (2012) · Hydrological Processes · doi:10.1002/hyp.9384 · Cited by 522
Metadata
- Authors
- Yatheendradas, S., Wagener, T., Gupta, H., Unkrich, C., Goodrich, D., Schaffner, M., & Stewart, A.
- Venue
- Water Resources Research
- Publisher
- American Geophysical Union (AGU)
- Published
- 2008-05
- Volume
- 44
- Issue
- 5
- ISSN
- 0043-1397 (ISSN-L)
- 1944-7973
- OpenAlex
- W2155729703
- Cited by
- 178
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 10.02
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Understanding uncertainty in distributed flash flood forecasting for semiarid regions. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1029/2007wr005940
- The paper
- Yatheendradas, S., Wagener, T., Gupta, H., Unkrich, C., Goodrich, D., Schaffner, M., & Stewart, A. (2008). Understanding uncertainty in distributed flash flood forecasting for semiarid regions. Water Resources Research. https://doi.org/10.1029/2007wr005940
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.