Large Sample Basin Experiments for Hydrological Model Parameterization: Results of the Model Parameter Experiment–MOPEX. IAHS Publ. 307, 2006, 313–338.

                                                                                                 

Compilation of the MOPEX 2004 results

 

N. Chahinian1,2, V. Andréassian1, Q. Duan3, V. Fortin4,5, H. Gupta6, T. Hogue7, T. Mathevet1,8, A. Montanari9, G. Moretti10, R. Moussa11, C. Perrin1, J. Schaake12, T. Wagener6,13 & Z. Xie14

 

1 Hydrology group, Cemagref Antony, Parc Tourvoie BP 44, 92163 Antony cedex, France

nanee.chahinian@agrocampus-rennes.fr

2 Now at: Institut de Recherche pour le Développement(IRD), UMR HydroSciences–Université Montpellier II, Case Courrier MSE, Place Eugène Bataillon, 34095 Montpellier cedex 5, France

3 Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, 7000 East Avenue, Livermore, California 94550, USA

4 Institut de Recherche d’Hydro Qubec 1800, boulevard Lionel-Boulet, Varennes, Québec J3X 1S1, Canada

5 Now at: Numerical Prediction Research, Meteorological Research Division, Environment Canada, 2121, North Service Road, Trans-Canada Highway, Dorval, Quebec H9P 1J3, Canada

6 University of Arizona, NSF STC SAHRA, Marshall Building Room 532A, 845 North Park Avenue, Tuscon,
Arizona 85721, USA

7 University of California Los Angeles, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, 5732C Boelter Hall, California 90095-1593, USA

8 Now at: EDF-DTG, BP 41, 38040 Grenoble cedex, France

9 University of Bologna, Viale del Risorgimento 2, 40136 Bologna, Italy

10 Ingenieurbüro Winkler und Partner GmbH, Schloßstr. 59A, 70176 Stuttgart, Germany

11 Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, UMR LISAH, 2 place Pierre Viala,   34060 Montpellier cedex, France

12 NOAA/NWS/OHD, Hydrology Laboratory, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910, USA

13 Penn State University, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,   212 Sackett Building, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802, USA

14 Institute of Atmospheric Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100029, China

 

Abstract As part of the MOPEX 2004 workshop, the participants were asked to submit simulations using the common database provided for the workshop (see Chahinian et al., this issue). The simulations were then analysed and the evaluation criteria computed to compare the models’ performance for the gauged and ungauged modes using six criteria describing the model’s performance in both high and low flow conditions. The comparisons were undertaken for all three participation levels (i.e. 3, 12 and 40 catchments). The results indicate that on the 3-catchment level model ranking may vary according to the tested criterion and catchment. Hence a larger number of catchments are necessary to evaluate the models’ performance. Among the 10 models tested on the 12 and 40 catchment samples in gauged mode, GR5H, Mordor and SAC-SMA rank as the top three models. When analysing model results in the ungauged mode, SAC-SMA ranks as the best of the four tested models. The analysis of the submitted files highlights the need for continuing efforts to develop model parameterization strategies for ungagued catchments in order to improve prediction in ungauged basins (PUB).

 

Key words  model comparison; MOPEX; parameter estimation; PUB; rainfall–runoff modelling; ungauged catchments