the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Evaluation of hydrological models on small mountainous catchments: impact of the meteorological forcings
Matthieu Le Lay
Catherine Fouchier
Alexandre Mas
François Colleoni
David Penot
Pierre-André Garambois
Olivier Laurantin
Abstract. Hydrological modelling of small mountainous catchments is particularly challenging because of the high spatio-temporal resolution required for the meteorological forcings. In-situ measurements of precipitation are typically scarce in these remote areas, particularly at high elevations. Precipitation reanalyses propose different alternative forcings for the simulation of streamflow using hydrological models. In this paper, we evaluate the performances of two hydrological models representing some of the key processes for small mountainous catchments, using different meteorological products with a fine spatial and temporal resolution. The evaluation is performed on 55 small catchments of the Northern French Alps. While the simulated streamflows are adequately reproduced for most of the configurations, these evaluations emphasize the added value of radar measurements, in particular for the reproduction of flood events. However, these better performances are only obtained because the hydrological models correct the underestimations of accumulated amounts (e.g. annual) from the radar data in high-elevation areas.
- Preprint
(2701 KB) -
Supplement
(10151 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Guillaume Evin et al.
Status: open (until 08 Jul 2023)
-
CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-845', Guillaume Thirel, 16 May 2023
reply
Dear authors, dear editor.
I would like to make a very small and specific comment about a few lines of this manuscript (please note I belong to the same institutions than some of the authors, but I think that this input might be useful to avoid any misunderstanding regarding what the authors wrote).
Indeed, at lines 226-231, the authors state: "Several studies have discussed the pros and cons of two popular criteria: The Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE Nash and Sutcliffe, 1970) and the Kling-Gupta Efficiency (KGE Gupta et al., 2009). Recently, Clark et al. (2021) emphasize the fact that these criteria rely on squared errors between simulated and observed streamflows and are subject to considerable sampling uncertainties. Large differences between observations and simulations are amplified by these squared errors and different remedies have been proposed to reduce their influence on the calibration process (e.g., log transformation, see Santos et al., 2018)."
I believe the formulation of these sentences should be improved. Indeed, in Santos et al. (2018), we explained and showed why the log-transformation should NOT be used with the KGE. Meanwhile, what the authors wrote could be read as we suggested to use the log transformation for the NSE and KGE criteria. I would just like to avoid this miunderstanding.
RegardsCitation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-845-CC1
Guillaume Evin et al.
Guillaume Evin et al.
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
142 | 52 | 7 | 201 | 13 | 2 | 4 |
- HTML: 142
- PDF: 52
- XML: 7
- Total: 201
- Supplement: 13
- BibTeX: 2
- EndNote: 4
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1