The DOI matches its Crossref record; 37 of the 37 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Crash testing hydrological models in contrasted climate conditions: An experiment on 216 Australian catchments
Open accessAbstract
This paper investigates the actual extrapolation capacity of three hydrological models in differing climate conditions. We propose a general testing framework, in which we perform series of split‐sample tests, testing all possible combinations of calibration‐validation periods using a 10 year sliding window. This methodology, which we have called the generalized split‐sample test (GSST), provides insights into the model's transposability over time under various climatic conditions. The three conceptual rainfall‐runoff models yielded similar results over a set of 216 catchments in southeast Australia. First, we assessed the model's efficiency in validation using a criterion combining the root‐mean‐square error and bias. A relation was found between this efficiency and the changes in mean rainfall (P) but not with changes in mean potential evapotranspiration (PE) or air temperature (T). Second, we focused on average runoff volumes and found that simulation biases are greatly affected by changes in P. Calibration over a wetter (drier) climate than the validation climate leads to an overestimation (underestimation) of the mean simulated runoff. We observed different magnitudes of these models deficiencies depending on the catchment considered. Results indicate that the transfer of model parameters in time may introduce a significant level of errors in simulations, meaning increased uncertainty in the various practical applications of these models (flow simulation, forecasting, design, reservoir management, climate change impact assessments, etc.). Testing model robustness with respect to this issue should help better quantify these uncertainties.
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
River flow forecasting through conceptual models part I — A discussion of principles
Nash, J. E., & Sutcliffe, J. V. (1970) · Journal of Hydrology · doi:10.1016/0022-1694(70)90255-6 · Cited by 23,674
Improvement of a parsimonious model for streamflow simulation
Perrin, C., Michel, C., & Andréassian, V. (2003) · Journal of Hydrology · doi:10.1016/s0022-1694(03)00225-7 · Cited by 1,821
Self-citationOperational testing of hydrological simulation models
KLEMEŠ, V. (1986) · Hydrological Sciences Journal · doi:10.1080/02626668609491024 · Cited by 1,366
Wilby, R. L., & Harris, I. (2006) · Water Resources Research · doi:10.1029/2005wr004065 · Cited by 917
Morton, F. I. (1983) · Journal of Hydrology · doi:10.1016/0022-1694(83)90177-4 · Cited by 815
Oudin, L., Andréassian, V., Perrin, C., Michel, C., & Le Moine, N. (2008) · Water Resources Research · doi:10.1029/2007wr006240 · Cited by 627
Self-citationAutomatic calibration of conceptual rainfall-runoff models: sensitivity to calibration data
Yapo, P. O., Gupta, H. V., & Sorooshian, S. (1996) · Journal of Hydrology · doi:10.1016/0022-1694(95)02918-4 · Cited by 610
Operational Validation and Intercomparison of Different Types of Hydrological Models
Refsgaard, J. C., & Knudsen, J. (1996) · Water Resources Research · doi:10.1029/96wr00896 · Cited by 591
Wagener, T., McIntyre, N., Lees, M. J., Wheater, H. S., & Gupta, H. V. (2003) · Hydrological Processes · doi:10.1002/hyp.1135 · Cited by 591
Comparison of uncertainty sources for climate change impacts: flood frequency in England
Kay, A. L., Davies, H. N., Bell, V. A., & Jones, R. G. (2009) · Climatic Change · doi:10.1007/s10584-008-9471-4 · Cited by 573
Cited by
Characterising performance of environmental models
Bennett, N. D., Croke, B. F. W., Guariso, G., Guillaume, J. H. A., Hamilton, S. H., Jakeman, A. J., Marsili-Libelli, S., Newham, L. T. H., Norton, J. P., Perrin, C., et al. (2013) · Environmental Modelling & Software · doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2012.09.011 · Cited by 1,536
Self-citationA decade of Predictions in Ungauged Basins (PUB)—a review
Hrachowitz, M., Savenije, H. H. G., Blöschl, G., McDonnell, J. J., Sivapalan, M., Pomeroy, J. W., Arheimer, B., Blume, T., Clark, M. P., Ehret, U., et al. (2013) · Hydrological Sciences Journal · doi:10.1080/02626667.2013.803183 · Cited by 1,295
Teutschbein, C., & Seibert, J. (2013) · Hydrology and Earth System Sciences · doi:10.5194/hess-17-5061-2013 · Cited by 425
Coxon, G., Addor, N., Bloomfield, J. P., Freer, J., Fry, M., Hannaford, J., Howden, N. J. K., Lane, R., Lewis, M., Robinson, E. L., et al. (2020) · Earth System Science Data · doi:10.5194/essd-12-2459-2020 · Cited by 312
Saft, M., Western, A. W., Zhang, L., Peel, M. C., & Potter, N. J. (2015) · Water Resources Research · doi:10.1002/2014wr015348 · Cited by 287
Metadata
- Authors
- Coron, L., Andréassian, V., Perrin, C., Lerat, J., Vaze, J., Bourqui, M., & Hendrickx, F.
- Venue
- Water Resources Research
- Publisher
- American Geophysical Union (AGU)
- Published
- 2012-05
- Volume
- 48
- Issue
- 5
- ISSN
- 0043-1397 (ISSN-L)
- 1944-7973
- OpenAlex
- W1652520942
- Cited by
- 461
- References
- 37
- FWCI
- 23.26
- 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: Crash testing hydrological models in contrasted climate conditions: An experiment on 216 Australian catchments. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1029/2011wr011721
- The paper
- Coron, L., Andréassian, V., Perrin, C., Lerat, J., Vaze, J., Bourqui, M., & Hendrickx, F. (2012). Crash testing hydrological models in contrasted climate conditions: An experiment on 216 Australian catchments. Water Resources Research. https://doi.org/10.1029/2011wr011721
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.
