Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Reducing predictive uncertainty in model simula...

Research

Links

Text available via DOI:

Keywords

View graph of relations

Reducing predictive uncertainty in model simulations: a comparison of two methods using the European Soil Erosion Model (EUROSEM)

Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review

Published

Standard

Reducing predictive uncertainty in model simulations: a comparison of two methods using the European Soil Erosion Model (EUROSEM). / Quinton, John N.
In: CATENA, Vol. 30, No. 2-3, 08.1997, p. 101-117.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review

Harvard

Quinton, JN 1997, 'Reducing predictive uncertainty in model simulations: a comparison of two methods using the European Soil Erosion Model (EUROSEM)', CATENA, vol. 30, no. 2-3, pp. 101-117. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0341-8162(97)00022-2

APA

Quinton, J. N. (1997). Reducing predictive uncertainty in model simulations: a comparison of two methods using the European Soil Erosion Model (EUROSEM). CATENA, 30(2-3), 101-117. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0341-8162(97)00022-2

Vancouver

Quinton JN. Reducing predictive uncertainty in model simulations: a comparison of two methods using the European Soil Erosion Model (EUROSEM). CATENA. 1997 Aug;30(2-3):101-117. doi: 10.1016/S0341-8162(97)00022-2

Author

Quinton, John N. / Reducing predictive uncertainty in model simulations : a comparison of two methods using the European Soil Erosion Model (EUROSEM). In: CATENA. 1997 ; Vol. 30, No. 2-3. pp. 101-117.

Bibtex

@article{2ce6ce2d61df4bb98cb9750a22c93f06,
title = "Reducing predictive uncertainty in model simulations: a comparison of two methods using the European Soil Erosion Model (EUROSEM)",
abstract = "The simulation results from physically-based hydrology and erosion models contain uncertainty. This is largely the result of uncertainty over the value of the model's input parameters. If such uncertainties are in the form of probability distributions of model output, it becomes apparent that they are not inconsiderable. Such variation in model output may reduce the utility of the simulations and it is therefore desirable for it to be reduced. Two methods are considered: one which relies on improved parameter set selection, and a second which derives physical parameters from observed hydrographs. Both methods are compared with a blind application of the model and observed data. The results suggest that, while both methods may be successful in reducing the variation in model output, the coincidence with the observed data deteriorates.",
keywords = "Soil erosion model, Uncertainty, Validation, Calibration, Evaluation, Modelling",
author = "Quinton, {John N.}",
year = "1997",
month = aug,
doi = "10.1016/S0341-8162(97)00022-2",
language = "English",
volume = "30",
pages = "101--117",
journal = "CATENA",
issn = "0341-8162",
publisher = "ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV",
number = "2-3",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Reducing predictive uncertainty in model simulations

T2 - a comparison of two methods using the European Soil Erosion Model (EUROSEM)

AU - Quinton, John N.

PY - 1997/8

Y1 - 1997/8

N2 - The simulation results from physically-based hydrology and erosion models contain uncertainty. This is largely the result of uncertainty over the value of the model's input parameters. If such uncertainties are in the form of probability distributions of model output, it becomes apparent that they are not inconsiderable. Such variation in model output may reduce the utility of the simulations and it is therefore desirable for it to be reduced. Two methods are considered: one which relies on improved parameter set selection, and a second which derives physical parameters from observed hydrographs. Both methods are compared with a blind application of the model and observed data. The results suggest that, while both methods may be successful in reducing the variation in model output, the coincidence with the observed data deteriorates.

AB - The simulation results from physically-based hydrology and erosion models contain uncertainty. This is largely the result of uncertainty over the value of the model's input parameters. If such uncertainties are in the form of probability distributions of model output, it becomes apparent that they are not inconsiderable. Such variation in model output may reduce the utility of the simulations and it is therefore desirable for it to be reduced. Two methods are considered: one which relies on improved parameter set selection, and a second which derives physical parameters from observed hydrographs. Both methods are compared with a blind application of the model and observed data. The results suggest that, while both methods may be successful in reducing the variation in model output, the coincidence with the observed data deteriorates.

KW - Soil erosion model

KW - Uncertainty

KW - Validation

KW - Calibration

KW - Evaluation

KW - Modelling

U2 - 10.1016/S0341-8162(97)00022-2

DO - 10.1016/S0341-8162(97)00022-2

M3 - Journal article

VL - 30

SP - 101

EP - 117

JO - CATENA

JF - CATENA

SN - 0341-8162

IS - 2-3

ER -