Assessing the impact of land use change on hydrology by ensemble modelling (LUCHEM) II: Ensemble combinations and predictions

被引:114
作者
Viney, Neil R. [1 ]
Bormann, H. [2 ]
Breuer, L. [3 ]
Bronstert, A. [4 ]
Croke, B. F. W. [5 ]
Frede, H. [3 ]
Graeff, T.
Hubrechts, L. [6 ]
Huisman, J. A. [7 ]
Jakeman, A. J. [5 ]
Kite, G. W. [8 ]
Lanini, J. [9 ]
Leavesley, G. [10 ]
Lettenmaier, D. P. [9 ]
Lindstroem, G. [11 ]
Seibert, J. [12 ]
Sivapalan, M. [13 ]
Willems, P. [14 ]
机构
[1] CSIRO Land & Water, Canberra, ACT 2600, Australia
[2] Carl Von Ossietzsky Univ, Inst Biol & Environm Sci, Oldenburg, Germany
[3] Univ Giessen, Inst Landscape Ecol & Resources Management, Giessen, Germany
[4] Univ Potsdam, Inst Geoecol, Potsdam, Germany
[5] Australian Natl Univ, Integrated Catchment Assessment & Management Ctr, Canberra, ACT, Australia
[6] Lisec NV, Afdeling Ecol Water, Genk, Belgium
[7] Forschungszentrum Julich, ICG Agrosphere 4, Julich, Germany
[8] Hydrol Solut, Pantymwyn, Wales
[9] Univ Washington, Dept Civil & Environm Engn, Seattle, WA 98195 USA
[10] US Geol Survey, Denver, CO 80225 USA
[11] Swedish Meteorol & Hydrol Inst, S-60176 Norrkoping, Sweden
[12] Stockholm Univ, Dept Phys Geog & Quaternary Geol, S-10691 Stockholm, Sweden
[13] Univ Western Australia, Ctr Water Res, Perth, WA 6009, Australia
[14] Katholieke Univ Leuven, Hydraul Lab, Louvain, Belgium
关键词
Multi-model ensembles; Single-model ensembles; Catchment modelling; Ensemble combination; Uncertainty; Land use change; CATCHMENT; SIMULATIONS; PERFORMANCE; UNCERTAINTY; OUTPUTS; WATER;
D O I
10.1016/j.advwatres.2008.05.006
中图分类号
TV21 [水资源调查与水利规划];
学科分类号
081501 ;
摘要
This paper reports on a project to compare predictions from a range of catchment models applied to a mesoscale river basin in central Germany and to assess various ensemble predictions of catchment streamflow. The models encompass a large range in inherent complexity and input requirements. In approximate order of decreasing complexity, they are DHSVM, MIKE-SHE, TOPLATS, WASIM-ETH, SWAT, PRMS, SLURP, HBV, LASCAM and IHACRES. The models are calibrated twice using different sets of input data. The two predictions from each model are then combined by simple averaging to produce a single-model ensemble. The 10 resulting single-model ensembles are combined in various ways to produce multi-model ensemble predictions. Both the single-model ensembles and the multi-model ensembles are shown to give predictions that are generally superior to those of their respective constituent models, both during a 7-year calibration period and a 9-year validation period. This occurs despite a considerable disparity in performance of the individual models. Even the weakest of models is shown to contribute useful information to the ensembles they are part of. The best model combination methods are a trimmed mean (constructed using the central four or six predictions each day) and a weighted mean ensemble (with weights calculated from calibration performance) that places relatively large weights on the better performing models. Conditional ensembles. in which separate model weights are used in different system states (e.g. summer and winter, high and low flows) generally yield little improvement over the weighted mean ensemble. However a conditional ensemble that discriminates between rising and receding flows shows moderate improvement. An analysis of ensemble predictions shows that the best ensembles are not necessarily those containing the best individual models. Conversely, it appears that some models that predict well individually do not necessarily combine well with other models in multi-model ensembles. The reasons behind these observations may relate to the effects of the weighting schemes, non-stationarity of the climate series and possible cross-correlations between models. Crown Copyright (C) 2008 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:147 / 158
页数:12
相关论文
共 26 条
[1]   Multimodel combination techniques for analysis of hydrological simulations: Application to Distributed Model Intercomparison Project results [J].
Ajami, Newsha K. ;
Duan, Qingyun ;
Gao, Xiaogang ;
Sorooshian, Soroosh .
JOURNAL OF HYDROMETEOROLOGY, 2006, 7 (04) :755-768
[2]   Large area hydrologic modeling and assessment - Part 1: Model development [J].
Arnold, JG ;
Srinivasan, R ;
Muttiah, RS ;
Williams, JR .
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION, 1998, 34 (01) :73-89
[3]  
Bergstrom S., 1995, Computer models of watershed hydrology., P443
[4]   Intercomparison of lumped versus distributed hydrologic model ensemble simulations on operational forecast scales [J].
Carpenter, Theresa M. ;
Georgakakos, Konstantine P. .
JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGY, 2006, 329 (1-2) :174-185
[5]   COMBINING FORECASTS - A REVIEW AND ANNOTATED-BIBLIOGRAPHY [J].
CLEMEN, RT .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FORECASTING, 1989, 5 (04) :559-583
[6]  
Croke BFW, 2004, ENVIRON MODELL SOFTW, V19, P1, DOI [10.1016/j.envsoft.2003.09.001, 10.1016/j.envsoft.09.001]
[7]   The rationale behind the success of multi-model ensembles in seasonal forecasting - II. Calibration and combination [J].
Doblas-Reyes, FJ ;
Hagedorn, R ;
Palmer, TN .
TELLUS SERIES A-DYNAMIC METEOROLOGY AND OCEANOGRAPHY, 2005, 57 (03) :234-252
[8]   Towards the characterization of streamflow simulation uncertainty through multimodel ensembles [J].
Georgakakos, KP ;
Seo, DJ ;
Gupta, H ;
Schaake, J ;
Butts, MB .
JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGY, 2004, 298 (1-4) :222-241
[9]   A method for identifying sources of model uncertainty in rainfall-runoff simulations [J].
Gourley, Jonathan J. ;
Vieux, Baxter E. .
JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGY, 2006, 327 (1-2) :68-80
[10]   Combining rainfall-runoff model outputs for improving ensemble streamflow prediction [J].
Kim, Young-Oh ;
Jeong, Daell ;
Ko, Ick Hwan .
JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING, 2006, 11 (06) :578-588