4.7 Article

A high-resolution dataset of water fluxes and states for Germany accounting for parametric uncertainty

期刊

HYDROLOGY AND EARTH SYSTEM SCIENCES
卷 21, 期 3, 页码 1769-1790

出版社

COPERNICUS GESELLSCHAFT MBH
DOI: 10.5194/hess-21-1769-2017

关键词

-

资金

  1. Helmholtz Alliance - Remote Sensing and Earth System Dynamics (HGF-EDA)
  2. Water and Earth System Sciences Competence Cluster (WESS)
  3. Helmholtz Interdisciplinary Graduate School for Environmental Research (HIGRADE)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Long-term, high-resolution data about hydrologic fluxes and states are needed for many hydrological applications. Because continuous large-scale observations of such variables are not feasible, hydrologic or land surface models are applied to derive them. This study aims to analyze and provide a consistent high-resolution dataset of land surface variables over Germany, accounting for uncertainties caused by equifinal model parameters. The mesoscale Hydrological Model (mHM) is employed to derive an ensemble (100 members) of evapotranspiration, groundwater recharge, soil moisture, and runoff generated at high spatial and temporal resolutions (4 km and daily, respectively) for the period 1951-2010. The model is cross-evaluated against the observed daily streamflow in 222 basins, which are not used for model calibration. The mean (standard deviation) of the ensemble median Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency estimated for these basins is 0.68 (0.09) for daily streamflow simulations. The modeled evapotranspiration and soil moisture reasonably represent the observations from eddy covariance stations. Our analysis indicates the lowest parametric uncertainty for evapotranspiration, and the largest is observed for groundwater recharge. The uncertainty of the hydrologic variables varies over the course of a year, with the exception of evapotranspiration, which remains almost constant. This study emphasizes the role of accounting for the parametric uncertainty in modelderived hydrological datasets.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据