Change search
ReferencesLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Assessing the impact of land use change on hydrology by ensemble modelling (LUCHEM) II: Ensemble combinations and predictions
Show others and affiliations
2009 (English)In: Advances in Water Resources, ISSN 0309-1708, E-ISSN 1872-9657, Vol. 32, no 2, 147-158 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

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.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2009. Vol. 32, no 2, 147-158 p.
Keyword [en]
multi-model ensembles, single-model ensembles, catchment modelling, ensemble combination, uncertainty, land use change, rainfall-runoff models, multimodel ensembles, catchment, simulations, performance, uncertainty, outputs, water
National Category
Oceanography, Hydrology, Water Resources
URN: urn:nbn:se:su:diva-31362DOI: 10.1016/j.advwatres.2008.05.006ISI: 000264512000003ISBN: 0309-1708OAI: diva2:276181
Available from: 2009-11-11 Created: 2009-11-11 Last updated: 2013-06-19Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full text

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Seibert, Jan
By organisation
Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology
In the same journal
Advances in Water Resources
Oceanography, Hydrology, Water Resources

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

Altmetric score

Total: 25 hits
ReferencesLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link