Journal cover Journal topic
Advances in Geosciences An open-access journal for refereed proceedings and special publications
Journal topic

Journal metrics

Journal metrics

  • CiteScore value: 1.02 CiteScore
    1.02
  • SNIP value: 0.614 SNIP 0.614
  • SJR value: 0.435 SJR 0.435
  • IPP value: 0.97 IPP 0.97
  • h5-index value: 11 h5-index 11
  • Scimago H <br class='hide-on-tablet hide-on-mobile'>index value: 32 Scimago H
    index 32
Volume 29
Adv. Geosci., 29, 43-50, 2011
https://doi.org/10.5194/adgeo-29-43-2011
© Author(s) 2011. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
Adv. Geosci., 29, 43-50, 2011
https://doi.org/10.5194/adgeo-29-43-2011
© Author(s) 2011. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

  28 Feb 2011

28 Feb 2011

Multi-model data fusion as a tool for PUB: example in a Swedish mesoscale catchment

J.-F. Exbrayat1, N. R. Viney2, J. Seibert3,4, H.-G. Frede1, and L. Breuer1 J.-F. Exbrayat et al.
  • 1Institute for Landscape Ecology and Resources Management, Justus-Liebig-University Giessen, Heinrich-Buff-Ring 26, 35392 Giessen, Germany
  • 2CSIRO Land and Water, Canberra, Australia
  • 3Department of Geography, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
  • 4Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden

Abstract. Post-processing the output of different rainfall-runoff models allows one to pool strengths of each model to produce more reliable predictions. As a new approach in the frame of the "Prediction in Ungauged Basins" initiative, this study investigates the geographical transferability of different parameter sets and data-fusion methods which were applied to 5 different rainfall-runoff models for a low-land catchment in Central Sweden. After usual calibration, we adopted a proxy-basin validation approach between two similar but non-nested sub-catchments in order to simulate ungauged conditions.

Many model combinations outperformed the best single model predictions with improvements of efficiencies from 0.70 for the best single model predictions to 0.77 for the best ensemble predictions. However no "best" data-fusion method could be determined as similar performances were obtained with different merging schemes. In general, poorer model performance, i.e. lower efficiency, was less likely to occur for ensembles which included more individual models.

Download
Citation
Share