Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 190

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

Ancient numerical daemons of conceptual hydrological modeling: 1. Fidelity and efficiency of time stepping schemes

Clark, Martyn P., Kavetski, Dmitri·2010·Water Resources Research

Abstract

A major neglected weakness of many current hydrological models is the numerical method used to solve the governing model equations. This paper thoroughly evaluates several classes of time stepping schemes in terms of numerical reliability and computational efficiency in the context of conceptual hydrological modeling. Numerical experiments are carried out using 8 distinct time stepping algorithms and 6 different conceptual rainfall‐runoff models, applied in a densely gauged experimental catchment, as well as in 12 basins with diverse physical and hydroclimatic characteristics. Results show that, over vast regions of the parameter space, the numerical errors of fixed‐step explicit schemes commonly used in hydrology routinely dwarf the structural errors of the model conceptualization. This substantially degrades model predictions, but also, disturbingly, generates fortuitously adequate performance for parameter sets where numerical errors compensate for model structural errors. Simply running fixed‐step explicit schemes with shorter time steps provides a poor balance between accuracy and efficiency: in some cases daily‐step adaptive explicit schemes with moderate error tolerances achieved comparable or higher accuracy than 15 min fixed‐step explicit approximations but were nearly 10 times more efficient. From the range of simple time stepping schemes investigated in this work, the fixed‐step implicit Euler method and the adaptive explicit Heun method emerge as good practical choices for the majority of simulation scenarios. In combination with the companion paper, where impacts on model analysis, interpretation, and prediction are assessed, this two‐part study vividly highlights the impact of numerical errors on critical performance aspects of conceptual hydrological models and provides practical guidelines for robust numerical implementation.

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 · 10.1029/2009wr008894

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

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 190

Metadata

Authors
Clark, M. P., & Kavetski, D.
Venue
Water Resources Research
Published
2010-10
Volume
46
Issue
10
ISSN
  • 0043-1397 (ISSN-L)
  • 1944-7973
OpenAlex
W1521525885
Cited by
190
References
2
FWCI
14.63
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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Ancient numerical daemons of conceptual hydrological modeling: 1. Fidelity and efficiency of time stepping schemes. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1029/2009wr008894
The paper
Clark, M. P., & Kavetski, D. (2010). Ancient numerical daemons of conceptual hydrological modeling: 1. Fidelity and efficiency of time stepping schemes. Water Resources Research. https://doi.org/10.1029/2009wr008894

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.