Cited by 63Hydrology and Watershed Management StudiesMeteorological Phenomena and SimulationsEnvironmental Monitoring and Data Management

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 74 of the 75 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The sensitivity of simulated streamflow to individual hydrologic processes across North America

Open access

Abstract

Streamflow sensitivity to different hydrologic processes varies in both space and time. This sensitivity is traditionally evaluated for the parameters specific to a given hydrologic model simulating streamflow. In this study, we apply a novel analysis over more than 3000 basins across North America considering a blended hydrologic model structure, which includes not only parametric, but also structural uncertainties. This enables seamless quantification of model process sensitivities and parameter sensitivities across a continuous set of models. It also leads to high-level conclusions about the importance of water cycle components on streamflow predictions, such as quickflow being the most sensitive process for streamflow simulations across the North American continent. The results of the 3000 basins are used to derive an approximation of sensitivities based on physiographic and climatologic data without the need to perform expensive sensitivity analyses. Detailed spatio-temporal inputs and results are shared through an interactive website.

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 · 10.1038/s41467-022-28010-7

Cites

74 of 74 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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The Great Plains have historically had poor performance for all kinds of models.

    “The Great Plains have historically had poor performance for all kinds of models (Mai et al., 2022)”

    From Ensembling differentiable process-based and data-driven models with diverse meteorological forcing datasets to advance streamflow simulation (2025) · cites this paper as Mai et al., 2022

    The Results section (“Preliminary calibration and validation of the blended model”) reports weaker validation performance over the high plains and says this is consistent with the other hydrologic models it lists. That supports a pattern of poor performance for several streamflow models, but not the broader claim about the entire Great Plains or “all kinds of models.” No page number is provided in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 75 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Dietrich, A., Yarlagadda, R. & Gruden, C. Estimating the potential benefits of green stormwater infrastructure on developed sites using hydrologic model simulation. Sust. Energ. 36, 557 (2017).
  2. Liang, X. A new parameterization for surface and groundwater interactions and its impact on water budgets with the variable infiltration capacity (VIC) land surface model. J. Geophys. Res. 108, 1989 (2003).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Mai, J., Craig, J. R., Tolson, B. A., & Arsenault, R.
Affiliations
  • University of Waterloo (CA)
  • École de Technologie Supérieure (CA)
Corresponding author
Mai, Juliane
Venue
Nature Communications
Published
2022-01-24
Volume
13
Issue
1
Pages
455-455
ISSN
2041-1723 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4206949136
Cited by
63
References
75
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 4
FWCI
4.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Communications (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Espace ÉTS (ETS) (submittedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Canarie (RS-332)
  • Compute Canada
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Water Science and Technology › Hydrology and Watershed Management Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Atmospheric Science › Meteorological Phenomena and Simulations
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › Environmental Monitoring and Data Management
Keywords
streamflow sensitivity, parameter sensitivity, structural uncertainty, quickflow, North American Basin

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