Search

Copyright of LHB: Hydroscience Journal is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The flood history of the transboundary Moselle River has so far not been analysed at the watershed scale. This study is based on a large collection of historical archives in hydrology dating to the beginning of the instrumental period. Many valuable archives are made available by the authors but data are discontinuous and heterogeneous. We describe homogenization and reconstruction methods leading to an original flood dataset covering the entire Moselle basin over the last two centuries. The flood series show that the basin is predominantly affected by oceanic floods that mostly occur in winter and that severe flooding generally affects the entire basin. A flood frequency analysis shows that the series are stationary and that flood quantiles obtained with short measured record series and reconstructed series are quite similar. However, although long historical series give robustness to the frequency analyses they also highlight bias and uncertainties related to sampling. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Climatologie is the property of EDP Sciences and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Streamflow is often the only variable used to evaluate hydrological models. In a previous international comparison study, eight research groups followed an identical protocol to calibrate 12 hydrological models using observed streamflow of catchments within the Meuse basin. In the current study, we quantify the differences in five states and fluxes of these 12 process-based models with similar streamflow performance, in a systematic and comprehensive way. Next, we assess model behavior plausibility by ranking the models for a set of criteria using streamflow and remote-sensing data of evaporation, snow cover, soil moisture and total storage anomalies. We found substantial dissimilarities between models for annual interception and seasonal evaporation rates, the annual number of days with water stored as snow, the mean annual maximum snow storage and the size of the root-zone storage capacity. These differences in internal process representation imply that these models cannot all simultaneously be close to reality. Modeled annual evaporation rates are consistent with Global Land Evaporation Amsterdam Model (GLEAM) estimates. However, there is a large uncertainty in modeled and remote-sensing annual interception. Substantial differences are also found between Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) and modeled number of days with snow storage. Models with relatively small root-zone storage capacities and without root water uptake reduction under dry conditions tend to have an empty root-zone storage for several days each summer, while this is not suggested by remote-sensing data of evaporation, soil moisture and vegetation indices. On the other hand, models with relatively large root-zone storage capacities tend to overestimate very dry total storage anomalies of the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE). None of the models is systematically consistent with the information available from all different (remote-sensing) data sources. Yet we did not reject models given the uncertainties in these data sources and their changing relevance for the system under investigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Streamflow is often the only variable used to constrain hydrological models. In a previous international comparison study, eight research groups followed an identical protocol to calibrate a total of twelve hydrological models using observed streamflow of catchments within the Meuse basin. In the current study, we hypothesize that these twelve process-based models with similar streamflow performance have similar representations of internal states and fluxes. We test our hypothesis by comparing internal states and fluxes between models and we assess their plausibility using remotely-sensed products of evaporation, snow cover, soil moisture and total storage anomalies. Our results indicate that models with similar streamflow performance represent internal states and fluxes differently. Substantial dissimilarities between models are found for annual and seasonal evaporation and interception rates, the number of days per year with water stored as snow, the mean annual maximum snow storage and the size of the root-zone storage capacity. Relatively small root-zone storage capacities for several models lead to drying-out of the root-zone storage and significant reduction of evaporative fluxes each summer, which is not suggested by remotely-sensed estimates of evaporation and root-zone soil moisture. These differences in internal process representation imply that these models cannot all simultaneously be close to reality. Using remotely-sensed products, we could evaluate the plausibility of model representations only to some extent, as many of these internal variables remain unknown, highlighting the need for experimental research. We also encourage modelers to rely on multi-model and multi-parameter studies to reveal to decision-makers the uncertainties inherent to the heterogeneity of catchments and the lack of evaluation data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

International collaboration between research institutes and universities is a promising way to reach consensus on hydrological model development. Although comparative studies are very valuable for international cooperation, they do often not lead to very clear new insights regarding the relevance of the modelled processes. We hypothesise that this is partly caused by model complexity and the comparison methods used, which focus too much on a good overall performance instead of focusing on specific events. In this study, we use an approach that focuses on the evaluation of specific events and characteristics. Eight international research groups calibrated their hourly model on the Ourthe catchment in Belgium and carried out a validation in time for the Ourthe catchment and a validation in space for nested and neighbouring catchments. The same protocol was followed for each model and an ensemble of best performing parameter sets was selected. Although the models showed similar performances based on general metrics (i.e. Nash-Sutcliffe Efficiency), clear differences could be observed for specific events. The results illustrate the relevance of including a very quick flow reservoir preceding the root zone storage to model peaks during low flows and including a slow reservoir in parallel with the fast reservoir to model the recession for the Ourthe catchment. This intercomparison enhanced the understanding of the hydrological functioning of the catchment and, above all, helped to evaluate each model against a set of alternative models. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is a wide recognition of the watershed scale as the right scale for global water management, notably in the context of the water framework directive. Hence, it often refers to international management and therefore to various pre-existing regional management tools, models or even objectives. In this study, we aim at describing the collaborative assessment of climate change's effect on low-flow regime and the consequences on three water-related sectors: drinking water production, agriculture and electricity production. The paper highlights the choices that were made during the study that involved scientific teams, managers and stakeholders from the four main countries of the Meuse Basin. It shows that the methodological choices were operational and aimed at preserving existing methods and knowledge within each country. They led to hydrological scenarios comparable to the main available ensemble approaches and to methodologies well accepted within the concerned countries. The results of the project highlight and quantify the water scarcity that the three sectors will have to face by the end of the century mainly regarding the electricity production. They also show that common allocation rules are necessary to manage water demand during future low-flow periods. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Copyright of Hydrological Sciences Journal/Journal des Sciences Hydrologiques is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)