English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

. Benchmarking model performance across large samples ofcatchments is useful to guide model selection and future model development.Given uncertainties in the observational data we use to drive and evaluatehydrological models, and uncertainties in the structure and parameterisationof models we use to produce hydrological simulations and predictions, it isessential that model evaluation is undertaken within an uncertainty analysisframework. Here, we benchmark the capability of several lumped hydrologicalmodels across Great Britain by focusing on daily flow and peak flowsimulation. Four hydrological model structures from the Framework forUnderstanding Structural Errors (FUSE) were applied to over 1000 catchmentsin England, Wales and Scotland. Model performance was then evaluated usingstandard performance metrics for daily flows and novel performance metricsfor peak flows considering parameter uncertainty. Our results show that lumped hydrological models were able to produceadequate simulations across most of Great Britain, with each model producingsimulations exceeding a 0.5 Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency for at least 80 % ofcatchments. All four models showed a similar spatial pattern of performance,producing better simulations in the wetter catchments to the west and poormodel performance in central Scotland and south-eastern England. Poor model performancewas often linked to the catchment water balance, with models unable tocapture the catchment hydrology where the water balance did not close.Overall, performance was similar between model structures, but differentmodels performed better for different catchment characteristics and metrics,as well as for assessing daily or peak flows, leading to the ensemble ofmodel structures outperforming any single structure, thus demonstrating thevalue of using multi-model structures across a large sample of differentcatchment behaviours. This research evaluates what conceptual lumped models can achieve as aperformance benchmark and provides interesting insights into whereand why these simple models may fail. The large number of river catchmentsincluded in this study makes it an appropriate benchmark for any futuredevelopments of a national model of Great Britain.

Benchmarking the predictive capability of hydrological models for river flow and flood peak predictions across over 1000 catchments in Great Britain