Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 422

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comparing sensitivity analysis methods to advance lumped watershed model identification and evaluation

Open access
Tang, Y., Reed, P., Wagener, T., van Werkhoven, K.·2007·Hydrology and Earth System Sciences

Abstract

Abstract. This study seeks to identify sensitivity tools that will advance our understanding of lumped hydrologic models for the purposes of model improvement, calibration efficiency and improved measurement schemes. Four sensitivity analysis methods were tested: (1) local analysis using parameter estimation software (PEST), (2) regional sensitivity analysis (RSA), (3) analysis of variance (ANOVA), and (4) Sobol's method. The methods' relative efficiencies and effectiveness have been analyzed and compared. These four sensitivity methods were applied to the lumped Sacramento soil moisture accounting model (SAC-SMA) coupled with SNOW-17. Results from this study characterize model sensitivities for two medium sized watersheds within the Juniata River Basin in Pennsylvania, USA. Comparative results for the 4 sensitivity methods are presented for a 3-year time series with 1 h, 6 h, and 24 h time intervals. The results of this study show that model parameter sensitivities are heavily impacted by the choice of analysis method as well as the model time interval. Differences between the two adjacent watersheds also suggest strong influences of local physical characteristics on the sensitivity methods' results. This study also contributes a comprehensive assessment of the repeatability, robustness, efficiency, and ease-of-implementation of the four sensitivity methods. Overall ANOVA and Sobol's method were shown to be superior to RSA and PEST. Relative to one another, ANOVA has reduced computational requirements and Sobol's method yielded more robust sensitivity rankings.

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 · 10.5194/hess-11-793-2007

Cites

7 of 7 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 7 references

Cited by

See all 422

Metadata

Authors
Tang, Y., Reed, P., Wagener, T., & van Werkhoven, K.
Venue
Hydrology and Earth System Sciences
Published
2007-02-05
Volume
11
Issue
2
Pages
793-817
ISSN
  • 1027-5606 (ISSN-L)
  • 1607-7938
OpenAlex
W2137300432
Cited by
422
References
7
FWCI
16.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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: Comparing sensitivity analysis methods to advance lumped watershed model identification and evaluation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5194/hess-11-793-2007
The paper
Tang, Y., Reed, P., Wagener, T., & van Werkhoven, K. (2007). Comparing sensitivity analysis methods to advance lumped watershed model identification and evaluation. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-11-793-2007

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.