Quick Search:

uzh logo
Browse by:

Zurich Open Repository and Archive

Maintenance: Tuesday, July the 26th 2016, 07:00-10:00

ZORA's new graphical user interface will be relaunched (For further infos watch out slideshow ZORA: Neues Look & Feel). There will be short interrupts on ZORA Service between 07:00am and 10:00 am. Please be patient.

Permanent URL to this publication: http://dx.doi.org/10.5167/uzh-24821

Viney, Neil R; Bormann, H; Breuer, L; Bronstert, A; Croke, B F W; Frede, H-G; Gräff, T; Hubrechts, L; Huisman, J A; Jakeman, A J; Kite, G; Lanini, J; Leavesley, G; Lettenmaier, D P; Lindström, G; Seibert, Jan; Sivapalan, M; Wilems, P (2009). Assessing the impact of land use change on hydrology by ensemble modelling(LUCHEM) II: ensemble combinations and predictions. Advances in Water Resources, 32(2):147-158.

[img] PDF - Registered users only
View at publisher


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 singlemodel 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.


48 citations in Web of Science®
56 citations in Scopus®
Google Scholar™



1 download since deposited on 28 Dec 2009
0 downloads since 12 months

Detailed statistics

Additional indexing

Item Type:Journal Article, refereed, original work
Communities & Collections:07 Faculty of Science > Institute of Geography
Dewey Decimal Classification:910 Geography & travel
Date:February 2009
Deposited On:28 Dec 2009 10:26
Last Modified:05 Apr 2016 13:35
Publisher DOI:10.1016/j.advwatres.2008.05.006

Users (please log in): suggest update or correction for this item

Repository Staff Only: item control page