603
Views
11
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Research Article

Application of Generalized Likelihood Uncertainty Estimation (GLUE) at different temporal scales to reduce the uncertainty level in modelled river flows

ORCID Icon, , &
Pages 1856-1871 | Received 28 Feb 2020, Accepted 24 Mar 2020, Published online: 16 Jun 2020

Figures & data

Figure 1. Overview map of the UK showing the case study catchments.

Figure 1. Overview map of the UK showing the case study catchments.

Table 1. Number of iterations and ranges of NSE for monthly percentiles.

Table 2. Key model parameter ranges and number of iterations.

Table 3. Model performance for the calibration and validation stages of the five catchments studied.

Figure 2. Ebbw River catchment – model calibration for the period 2000–2003.

Figure 2. Ebbw River catchment – model calibration for the period 2000–2003.

Table 4. Results of daily GLUE prediction bounds for all the studied catchments (See the Appendix for description of the parameters).

Table 5. Results of monthly GLUE prediction bounds for all the studied catchments.

Table 6. Results of seasonal GLUE prediction bounds for all the studied catchments.

Table 7. Results of annual GLUE prediction bounds for all the studied catchments.

Figure 3. Model output uncertainty boundaries (5th and 95th percentiles) when performing the GLUE analysis on model calibration (2000–2004) and validation (1961–2012) periods for the Ebbw catchment river flow (monthly values).

Figure 3. Model output uncertainty boundaries (5th and 95th percentiles) when performing the GLUE analysis on model calibration (2000–2004) and validation (1961–2012) periods for the Ebbw catchment river flow (monthly values).

Figure 4. Model output uncertainty boundaries (5th and 95th percentiles) when performing the GLUE analysis on model calibration (2001–2012) and validation (1967–2012) periods for the Don catchment river flow (seasonal values).

Figure 4. Model output uncertainty boundaries (5th and 95th percentiles) when performing the GLUE analysis on model calibration (2001–2012) and validation (1967–2012) periods for the Don catchment river flow (seasonal values).

Figure 5. Model output uncertainty boundaries (5th and 95th percentiles) when performing the GLUE analysis on model calibration (2001–2012) and validation (1971–2000) periods for the Frome catchment using annual observed and simulated data.

Figure 5. Model output uncertainty boundaries (5th and 95th percentiles) when performing the GLUE analysis on model calibration (2001–2012) and validation (1971–2000) periods for the Frome catchment using annual observed and simulated data.

Figure 6. Uncertainty band of the DiCaSM parameters for the period 1962–2012 for the Don and Ebbw catchments. The solid (red) vertical line represents the average value of the measured river flow for the simulated period.

Figure 6. Uncertainty band of the DiCaSM parameters for the period 1962–2012 for the Don and Ebbw catchments. The solid (red) vertical line represents the average value of the measured river flow for the simulated period.

Figure 7. Cumulative probability plot of flows for the Don and Ebbw catchments (1962–2012).

Figure 7. Cumulative probability plot of flows for the Don and Ebbw catchments (1962–2012).

Figure 8. Containment ratio (CR) at different timescales for the Frome, Eden, Don and Ebbw catchments.

Figure 8. Containment ratio (CR) at different timescales for the Frome, Eden, Don and Ebbw catchments.

Figure 9. Asymmetric degree S for the Frome, Eden, Don and Ebbw catchments.

Figure 9. Asymmetric degree S for the Frome, Eden, Don and Ebbw catchments.

Figure 10. Asymmetric degree T for the Frome, Eden, Don and Ebbw catchments.

Figure 10. Asymmetric degree T for the Frome, Eden, Don and Ebbw catchments.

Figure 11. Average relative band width, RB, for the Frome, Eden, Don and Ebbw catchments.

Figure 11. Average relative band width, RB, for the Frome, Eden, Don and Ebbw catchments.

Figure 12. Average relative deviation, RD, for the Frome, Eden, Don and Ebbw catchments.

Figure 12. Average relative deviation, RD, for the Frome, Eden, Don and Ebbw catchments.

Figure 13. R factor values for the Frome, Eden, Don and Ebbw catchments.

Figure 13. R factor values for the Frome, Eden, Don and Ebbw catchments.

Figure A1. Flowchart for the uncertainty analysis procedure.

Figure A1. Flowchart for the uncertainty analysis procedure.

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.