Comparing One-Way and Two-Way Coupled Hydrometeorological Forecasting Systems for Flood Forecasting in the Mediterranean Region

A pair of hydro-meteorological modeling systems were calibrated and evaluated for the Ayalon basin in central Israel to assess the advantages and limitations of one-way versus two-way coupled modeling systems for flood prediction. The models used included the Hydrological Engineering Center-Hydrological Modeling System (HEC-HMS) model and the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) Hydro modeling system. The models were forced by observed, interpolated precipitation from rain-gauges within the basin, and with modeled precipitation from the WRF atmospheric model. Detailed calibration and evaluation was carried out for two major winter storms in January and December 2013. Then, both modeling systems were executed and evaluated in an operational mode for the full 2014/2015 rainy season. Outputs from these simulations were compared to observed measurements from the hydrometric station at the Ayalon basin outlet. Various statistical metrics were employed to quantify and analyze the results: correlation, Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) and the Nash–Sutcliffe (NS) efficiency coefficient. Foremost, the results presented in this study highlight the sensitivity of hydrological responses to different sources of simulated and observed precipitation data, and demonstrate improvement, although not significant, at the Hydrological response, like simulated hydrographs. With observed precipitation data both calibrated models closely simulated the observed hydrographs. The two-way coupled WRF/WRF-Hydro modeling system produced improved both the precipitation and hydrological simulations as compared to the one-way WRF simulations. Findings from this study, as well as previous studies, suggest that the use of two-way atmospheric-hydrological coupling has the potential to improve precipitation and, therefore, hydrological forecasts for early flood warning applications. However, more research needed in order to better understand the land-atmosphere coupling mechanisms driving hydrometeorological processes on a wider variety precipitation and terrestrial hydrologic systems. Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:

Autor*in:	Amir Givati [verfasserIn] David Gochis [verfasserIn] Thomas Rummler [verfasserIn] Harald Kunstmann [verfasserIn]

Format:	E-Artikel
Sprache:	Englisch

Erschienen:	2016

Schlagwörter:	floods atmospheric-land surface coupling WRF-Hydro

Übergeordnetes Werk:	In: Hydrology - MDPI AG, 2015, 3(2016), 2, p 19
Übergeordnetes Werk:	volume:3 ; year:2016 ; number:2, p 19

Links:	Link aufrufen Link aufrufen Link aufrufen Journal toc

DOI / URN:	10.3390/hydrology3020019

Katalog-ID:	DOAJ02254075X

Internformat


LEADER	01000caa a22002652 4500
001	DOAJ02254075X
003	DE-627
005	20230307055752.0
007	cr uuu---uuuuu
008	230226s2016 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c
024	7		\|a 10.3390/hydrology3020019 \|2 doi
035			\|a (DE-627)DOAJ02254075X
035			\|a (DE-599)DOAJ84f53018d8e44ba08e415f8bdab3dbd4
040			\|a DE-627 \|b ger \|c DE-627 \|e rakwb
041			\|a eng
100	0		\|a Amir Givati \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
245	1	0	\|a Comparing One-Way and Two-Way Coupled Hydrometeorological Forecasting Systems for Flood Forecasting in the Mediterranean Region
264		1	\|c 2016
336			\|a Text \|b txt \|2 rdacontent
337			\|a Computermedien \|b c \|2 rdamedia
338			\|a Online-Ressource \|b cr \|2 rdacarrier
520			\|a A pair of hydro-meteorological modeling systems were calibrated and evaluated for the Ayalon basin in central Israel to assess the advantages and limitations of one-way versus two-way coupled modeling systems for flood prediction. The models used included the Hydrological Engineering Center-Hydrological Modeling System (HEC-HMS) model and the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) Hydro modeling system. The models were forced by observed, interpolated precipitation from rain-gauges within the basin, and with modeled precipitation from the WRF atmospheric model. Detailed calibration and evaluation was carried out for two major winter storms in January and December 2013. Then, both modeling systems were executed and evaluated in an operational mode for the full 2014/2015 rainy season. Outputs from these simulations were compared to observed measurements from the hydrometric station at the Ayalon basin outlet. Various statistical metrics were employed to quantify and analyze the results: correlation, Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) and the Nash–Sutcliffe (NS) efficiency coefficient. Foremost, the results presented in this study highlight the sensitivity of hydrological responses to different sources of simulated and observed precipitation data, and demonstrate improvement, although not significant, at the Hydrological response, like simulated hydrographs. With observed precipitation data both calibrated models closely simulated the observed hydrographs. The two-way coupled WRF/WRF-Hydro modeling system produced improved both the precipitation and hydrological simulations as compared to the one-way WRF simulations. Findings from this study, as well as previous studies, suggest that the use of two-way atmospheric-hydrological coupling has the potential to improve precipitation and, therefore, hydrological forecasts for early flood warning applications. However, more research needed in order to better understand the land-atmosphere coupling mechanisms driving hydrometeorological processes on a wider variety precipitation and terrestrial hydrologic systems.
650		4	\|a floods
650		4	\|a atmospheric-land surface coupling
650		4	\|a WRF-Hydro
653		0	\|a Science
653		0	\|a Q
700	0		\|a David Gochis \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Thomas Rummler \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Harald Kunstmann \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
773	0	8	\|i In \|t Hydrology \|d MDPI AG, 2015 \|g 3(2016), 2, p 19 \|w (DE-627)791048659 \|w (DE-600)2777964-6 \|x 23065338 \|7 nnns
773	1	8	\|g volume:3 \|g year:2016 \|g number:2, p 19
856	4	0	\|u https://doi.org/10.3390/hydrology3020019 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	0	\|u https://doaj.org/article/84f53018d8e44ba08e415f8bdab3dbd4 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	0	\|u http://www.mdpi.com/2306-5338/3/2/19 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	2	\|u https://doaj.org/toc/2306-5338 \|y Journal toc \|z kostenfrei
912			\|a GBV_USEFLAG_A
912			\|a SYSFLAG_A
912			\|a GBV_DOAJ
912			\|a GBV_ILN_11
912			\|a GBV_ILN_20
912			\|a GBV_ILN_22
912			\|a GBV_ILN_23
912			\|a GBV_ILN_24
912			\|a GBV_ILN_39
912			\|a GBV_ILN_40
912			\|a GBV_ILN_60
912			\|a GBV_ILN_62
912			\|a GBV_ILN_63
912			\|a GBV_ILN_65
912			\|a GBV_ILN_69
912			\|a GBV_ILN_70
912			\|a GBV_ILN_73
912			\|a GBV_ILN_95
912			\|a GBV_ILN_105
912			\|a GBV_ILN_110
912			\|a GBV_ILN_151
912			\|a GBV_ILN_161
912			\|a GBV_ILN_170
912			\|a GBV_ILN_213
912			\|a GBV_ILN_230
912			\|a GBV_ILN_285
912			\|a GBV_ILN_293
912			\|a GBV_ILN_370
912			\|a GBV_ILN_602
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2014
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4012
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4037
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4112
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4125
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4126
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4249
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4305
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4306
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4307
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4313
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4322
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4323
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4324
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4325
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4335
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4338
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4367
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4392
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4700
951			\|a AR
952			\|d 3 \|j 2016 \|e 2, p 19

Indexfelder

author_variant	a g ag d g dg t r tr h k hk
matchkey_str	article:23065338:2016----::oprnoeaadwwyopehdoeerlgcloeatnssesofodoe
hierarchy_sort_str	2016
publishDate	2016
allfields	10.3390/hydrology3020019 doi (DE-627)DOAJ02254075X (DE-599)DOAJ84f53018d8e44ba08e415f8bdab3dbd4 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Amir Givati verfasserin aut Comparing One-Way and Two-Way Coupled Hydrometeorological Forecasting Systems for Flood Forecasting in the Mediterranean Region 2016 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier A pair of hydro-meteorological modeling systems were calibrated and evaluated for the Ayalon basin in central Israel to assess the advantages and limitations of one-way versus two-way coupled modeling systems for flood prediction. The models used included the Hydrological Engineering Center-Hydrological Modeling System (HEC-HMS) model and the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) Hydro modeling system. The models were forced by observed, interpolated precipitation from rain-gauges within the basin, and with modeled precipitation from the WRF atmospheric model. Detailed calibration and evaluation was carried out for two major winter storms in January and December 2013. Then, both modeling systems were executed and evaluated in an operational mode for the full 2014/2015 rainy season. Outputs from these simulations were compared to observed measurements from the hydrometric station at the Ayalon basin outlet. Various statistical metrics were employed to quantify and analyze the results: correlation, Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) and the Nash–Sutcliffe (NS) efficiency coefficient. Foremost, the results presented in this study highlight the sensitivity of hydrological responses to different sources of simulated and observed precipitation data, and demonstrate improvement, although not significant, at the Hydrological response, like simulated hydrographs. With observed precipitation data both calibrated models closely simulated the observed hydrographs. The two-way coupled WRF/WRF-Hydro modeling system produced improved both the precipitation and hydrological simulations as compared to the one-way WRF simulations. Findings from this study, as well as previous studies, suggest that the use of two-way atmospheric-hydrological coupling has the potential to improve precipitation and, therefore, hydrological forecasts for early flood warning applications. However, more research needed in order to better understand the land-atmosphere coupling mechanisms driving hydrometeorological processes on a wider variety precipitation and terrestrial hydrologic systems. floods atmospheric-land surface coupling WRF-Hydro Science Q David Gochis verfasserin aut Thomas Rummler verfasserin aut Harald Kunstmann verfasserin aut In Hydrology MDPI AG, 2015 3(2016), 2, p 19 (DE-627)791048659 (DE-600)2777964-6 23065338 nnns volume:3 year:2016 number:2, p 19 https://doi.org/10.3390/hydrology3020019 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/84f53018d8e44ba08e415f8bdab3dbd4 kostenfrei http://www.mdpi.com/2306-5338/3/2/19 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2306-5338 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4392 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 3 2016 2, p 19
spelling	10.3390/hydrology3020019 doi (DE-627)DOAJ02254075X (DE-599)DOAJ84f53018d8e44ba08e415f8bdab3dbd4 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Amir Givati verfasserin aut Comparing One-Way and Two-Way Coupled Hydrometeorological Forecasting Systems for Flood Forecasting in the Mediterranean Region 2016 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier A pair of hydro-meteorological modeling systems were calibrated and evaluated for the Ayalon basin in central Israel to assess the advantages and limitations of one-way versus two-way coupled modeling systems for flood prediction. The models used included the Hydrological Engineering Center-Hydrological Modeling System (HEC-HMS) model and the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) Hydro modeling system. The models were forced by observed, interpolated precipitation from rain-gauges within the basin, and with modeled precipitation from the WRF atmospheric model. Detailed calibration and evaluation was carried out for two major winter storms in January and December 2013. Then, both modeling systems were executed and evaluated in an operational mode for the full 2014/2015 rainy season. Outputs from these simulations were compared to observed measurements from the hydrometric station at the Ayalon basin outlet. Various statistical metrics were employed to quantify and analyze the results: correlation, Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) and the Nash–Sutcliffe (NS) efficiency coefficient. Foremost, the results presented in this study highlight the sensitivity of hydrological responses to different sources of simulated and observed precipitation data, and demonstrate improvement, although not significant, at the Hydrological response, like simulated hydrographs. With observed precipitation data both calibrated models closely simulated the observed hydrographs. The two-way coupled WRF/WRF-Hydro modeling system produced improved both the precipitation and hydrological simulations as compared to the one-way WRF simulations. Findings from this study, as well as previous studies, suggest that the use of two-way atmospheric-hydrological coupling has the potential to improve precipitation and, therefore, hydrological forecasts for early flood warning applications. However, more research needed in order to better understand the land-atmosphere coupling mechanisms driving hydrometeorological processes on a wider variety precipitation and terrestrial hydrologic systems. floods atmospheric-land surface coupling WRF-Hydro Science Q David Gochis verfasserin aut Thomas Rummler verfasserin aut Harald Kunstmann verfasserin aut In Hydrology MDPI AG, 2015 3(2016), 2, p 19 (DE-627)791048659 (DE-600)2777964-6 23065338 nnns volume:3 year:2016 number:2, p 19 https://doi.org/10.3390/hydrology3020019 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/84f53018d8e44ba08e415f8bdab3dbd4 kostenfrei http://www.mdpi.com/2306-5338/3/2/19 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2306-5338 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4392 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 3 2016 2, p 19
allfields_unstemmed	10.3390/hydrology3020019 doi (DE-627)DOAJ02254075X (DE-599)DOAJ84f53018d8e44ba08e415f8bdab3dbd4 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Amir Givati verfasserin aut Comparing One-Way and Two-Way Coupled Hydrometeorological Forecasting Systems for Flood Forecasting in the Mediterranean Region 2016 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier A pair of hydro-meteorological modeling systems were calibrated and evaluated for the Ayalon basin in central Israel to assess the advantages and limitations of one-way versus two-way coupled modeling systems for flood prediction. The models used included the Hydrological Engineering Center-Hydrological Modeling System (HEC-HMS) model and the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) Hydro modeling system. The models were forced by observed, interpolated precipitation from rain-gauges within the basin, and with modeled precipitation from the WRF atmospheric model. Detailed calibration and evaluation was carried out for two major winter storms in January and December 2013. Then, both modeling systems were executed and evaluated in an operational mode for the full 2014/2015 rainy season. Outputs from these simulations were compared to observed measurements from the hydrometric station at the Ayalon basin outlet. Various statistical metrics were employed to quantify and analyze the results: correlation, Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) and the Nash–Sutcliffe (NS) efficiency coefficient. Foremost, the results presented in this study highlight the sensitivity of hydrological responses to different sources of simulated and observed precipitation data, and demonstrate improvement, although not significant, at the Hydrological response, like simulated hydrographs. With observed precipitation data both calibrated models closely simulated the observed hydrographs. The two-way coupled WRF/WRF-Hydro modeling system produced improved both the precipitation and hydrological simulations as compared to the one-way WRF simulations. Findings from this study, as well as previous studies, suggest that the use of two-way atmospheric-hydrological coupling has the potential to improve precipitation and, therefore, hydrological forecasts for early flood warning applications. However, more research needed in order to better understand the land-atmosphere coupling mechanisms driving hydrometeorological processes on a wider variety precipitation and terrestrial hydrologic systems. floods atmospheric-land surface coupling WRF-Hydro Science Q David Gochis verfasserin aut Thomas Rummler verfasserin aut Harald Kunstmann verfasserin aut In Hydrology MDPI AG, 2015 3(2016), 2, p 19 (DE-627)791048659 (DE-600)2777964-6 23065338 nnns volume:3 year:2016 number:2, p 19 https://doi.org/10.3390/hydrology3020019 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/84f53018d8e44ba08e415f8bdab3dbd4 kostenfrei http://www.mdpi.com/2306-5338/3/2/19 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2306-5338 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4392 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 3 2016 2, p 19
allfieldsGer	10.3390/hydrology3020019 doi (DE-627)DOAJ02254075X (DE-599)DOAJ84f53018d8e44ba08e415f8bdab3dbd4 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Amir Givati verfasserin aut Comparing One-Way and Two-Way Coupled Hydrometeorological Forecasting Systems for Flood Forecasting in the Mediterranean Region 2016 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier A pair of hydro-meteorological modeling systems were calibrated and evaluated for the Ayalon basin in central Israel to assess the advantages and limitations of one-way versus two-way coupled modeling systems for flood prediction. The models used included the Hydrological Engineering Center-Hydrological Modeling System (HEC-HMS) model and the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) Hydro modeling system. The models were forced by observed, interpolated precipitation from rain-gauges within the basin, and with modeled precipitation from the WRF atmospheric model. Detailed calibration and evaluation was carried out for two major winter storms in January and December 2013. Then, both modeling systems were executed and evaluated in an operational mode for the full 2014/2015 rainy season. Outputs from these simulations were compared to observed measurements from the hydrometric station at the Ayalon basin outlet. Various statistical metrics were employed to quantify and analyze the results: correlation, Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) and the Nash–Sutcliffe (NS) efficiency coefficient. Foremost, the results presented in this study highlight the sensitivity of hydrological responses to different sources of simulated and observed precipitation data, and demonstrate improvement, although not significant, at the Hydrological response, like simulated hydrographs. With observed precipitation data both calibrated models closely simulated the observed hydrographs. The two-way coupled WRF/WRF-Hydro modeling system produced improved both the precipitation and hydrological simulations as compared to the one-way WRF simulations. Findings from this study, as well as previous studies, suggest that the use of two-way atmospheric-hydrological coupling has the potential to improve precipitation and, therefore, hydrological forecasts for early flood warning applications. However, more research needed in order to better understand the land-atmosphere coupling mechanisms driving hydrometeorological processes on a wider variety precipitation and terrestrial hydrologic systems. floods atmospheric-land surface coupling WRF-Hydro Science Q David Gochis verfasserin aut Thomas Rummler verfasserin aut Harald Kunstmann verfasserin aut In Hydrology MDPI AG, 2015 3(2016), 2, p 19 (DE-627)791048659 (DE-600)2777964-6 23065338 nnns volume:3 year:2016 number:2, p 19 https://doi.org/10.3390/hydrology3020019 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/84f53018d8e44ba08e415f8bdab3dbd4 kostenfrei http://www.mdpi.com/2306-5338/3/2/19 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2306-5338 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4392 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 3 2016 2, p 19
allfieldsSound	10.3390/hydrology3020019 doi (DE-627)DOAJ02254075X (DE-599)DOAJ84f53018d8e44ba08e415f8bdab3dbd4 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Amir Givati verfasserin aut Comparing One-Way and Two-Way Coupled Hydrometeorological Forecasting Systems for Flood Forecasting in the Mediterranean Region 2016 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier A pair of hydro-meteorological modeling systems were calibrated and evaluated for the Ayalon basin in central Israel to assess the advantages and limitations of one-way versus two-way coupled modeling systems for flood prediction. The models used included the Hydrological Engineering Center-Hydrological Modeling System (HEC-HMS) model and the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) Hydro modeling system. The models were forced by observed, interpolated precipitation from rain-gauges within the basin, and with modeled precipitation from the WRF atmospheric model. Detailed calibration and evaluation was carried out for two major winter storms in January and December 2013. Then, both modeling systems were executed and evaluated in an operational mode for the full 2014/2015 rainy season. Outputs from these simulations were compared to observed measurements from the hydrometric station at the Ayalon basin outlet. Various statistical metrics were employed to quantify and analyze the results: correlation, Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) and the Nash–Sutcliffe (NS) efficiency coefficient. Foremost, the results presented in this study highlight the sensitivity of hydrological responses to different sources of simulated and observed precipitation data, and demonstrate improvement, although not significant, at the Hydrological response, like simulated hydrographs. With observed precipitation data both calibrated models closely simulated the observed hydrographs. The two-way coupled WRF/WRF-Hydro modeling system produced improved both the precipitation and hydrological simulations as compared to the one-way WRF simulations. Findings from this study, as well as previous studies, suggest that the use of two-way atmospheric-hydrological coupling has the potential to improve precipitation and, therefore, hydrological forecasts for early flood warning applications. However, more research needed in order to better understand the land-atmosphere coupling mechanisms driving hydrometeorological processes on a wider variety precipitation and terrestrial hydrologic systems. floods atmospheric-land surface coupling WRF-Hydro Science Q David Gochis verfasserin aut Thomas Rummler verfasserin aut Harald Kunstmann verfasserin aut In Hydrology MDPI AG, 2015 3(2016), 2, p 19 (DE-627)791048659 (DE-600)2777964-6 23065338 nnns volume:3 year:2016 number:2, p 19 https://doi.org/10.3390/hydrology3020019 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/84f53018d8e44ba08e415f8bdab3dbd4 kostenfrei http://www.mdpi.com/2306-5338/3/2/19 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2306-5338 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4392 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 3 2016 2, p 19
language	English
source	In Hydrology 3(2016), 2, p 19 volume:3 year:2016 number:2, p 19
sourceStr	In Hydrology 3(2016), 2, p 19 volume:3 year:2016 number:2, p 19
format_phy_str_mv	Article
institution	findex.gbv.de
topic_facet	floods atmospheric-land surface coupling WRF-Hydro Science Q
isfreeaccess_bool	true
container_title	Hydrology
authorswithroles_txt_mv	Amir Givati @@aut@@ David Gochis @@aut@@ Thomas Rummler @@aut@@ Harald Kunstmann @@aut@@
publishDateDaySort_date	2016-01-01T00:00:00Z
hierarchy_top_id	791048659
id	DOAJ02254075X
language_de	englisch
fullrecord	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ02254075X</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230307055752.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230226s2016 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.3390/hydrology3020019</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ02254075X</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJ84f53018d8e44ba08e415f8bdab3dbd4</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Amir Givati</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Comparing One-Way and Two-Way Coupled Hydrometeorological Forecasting Systems for Flood Forecasting in the Mediterranean Region</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2016</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">A pair of hydro-meteorological modeling systems were calibrated and evaluated for the Ayalon basin in central Israel to assess the advantages and limitations of one-way versus two-way coupled modeling systems for flood prediction. The models used included the Hydrological Engineering Center-Hydrological Modeling System (HEC-HMS) model and the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) Hydro modeling system. The models were forced by observed, interpolated precipitation from rain-gauges within the basin, and with modeled precipitation from the WRF atmospheric model. Detailed calibration and evaluation was carried out for two major winter storms in January and December 2013. Then, both modeling systems were executed and evaluated in an operational mode for the full 2014/2015 rainy season. Outputs from these simulations were compared to observed measurements from the hydrometric station at the Ayalon basin outlet. Various statistical metrics were employed to quantify and analyze the results: correlation, Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) and the Nash–Sutcliffe (NS) efficiency coefficient. Foremost, the results presented in this study highlight the sensitivity of hydrological responses to different sources of simulated and observed precipitation data, and demonstrate improvement, although not significant, at the Hydrological response, like simulated hydrographs. With observed precipitation data both calibrated models closely simulated the observed hydrographs. The two-way coupled WRF/WRF-Hydro modeling system produced improved both the precipitation and hydrological simulations as compared to the one-way WRF simulations. Findings from this study, as well as previous studies, suggest that the use of two-way atmospheric-hydrological coupling has the potential to improve precipitation and, therefore, hydrological forecasts for early flood warning applications. However, more research needed in order to better understand the land-atmosphere coupling mechanisms driving hydrometeorological processes on a wider variety precipitation and terrestrial hydrologic systems.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">floods</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">atmospheric-land surface coupling</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">WRF-Hydro</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Science</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Q</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">David Gochis</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Thomas Rummler</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Harald Kunstmann</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Hydrology</subfield><subfield code="d">MDPI AG, 2015</subfield><subfield code="g">3(2016), 2, p 19</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)791048659</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2777964-6</subfield><subfield code="x">23065338</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:3</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2016</subfield><subfield code="g">number:2, p 19</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.3390/hydrology3020019</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/84f53018d8e44ba08e415f8bdab3dbd4</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">http://www.mdpi.com/2306-5338/3/2/19</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/2306-5338</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_370</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4335</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4392</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">3</subfield><subfield code="j">2016</subfield><subfield code="e">2, p 19</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
author	Amir Givati
spellingShingle	Amir Givati misc floods misc atmospheric-land surface coupling misc WRF-Hydro misc Science misc Q Comparing One-Way and Two-Way Coupled Hydrometeorological Forecasting Systems for Flood Forecasting in the Mediterranean Region
authorStr	Amir Givati
ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv	@@773@@(DE-627)791048659
format	electronic Article
delete_txt_mv	keep
author_role	aut aut aut aut
collection	DOAJ
remote_str	true
illustrated	Not Illustrated
issn	23065338
topic_title	Comparing One-Way and Two-Way Coupled Hydrometeorological Forecasting Systems for Flood Forecasting in the Mediterranean Region floods atmospheric-land surface coupling WRF-Hydro
topic	misc floods misc atmospheric-land surface coupling misc WRF-Hydro misc Science misc Q
topic_unstemmed	misc floods misc atmospheric-land surface coupling misc WRF-Hydro misc Science misc Q
topic_browse	misc floods misc atmospheric-land surface coupling misc WRF-Hydro misc Science misc Q
format_facet	Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource
format_main_str_mv	Text Zeitschrift/Artikel
carriertype_str_mv	cr
hierarchy_parent_title	Hydrology
hierarchy_parent_id	791048659
hierarchy_top_title	Hydrology
isfreeaccess_txt	true
familylinks_str_mv	(DE-627)791048659 (DE-600)2777964-6
title	Comparing One-Way and Two-Way Coupled Hydrometeorological Forecasting Systems for Flood Forecasting in the Mediterranean Region
ctrlnum	(DE-627)DOAJ02254075X (DE-599)DOAJ84f53018d8e44ba08e415f8bdab3dbd4
title_full	Comparing One-Way and Two-Way Coupled Hydrometeorological Forecasting Systems for Flood Forecasting in the Mediterranean Region
author_sort	Amir Givati
journal	Hydrology
journalStr	Hydrology
lang_code	eng
isOA_bool	true
recordtype	marc
publishDateSort	2016
contenttype_str_mv	txt
author_browse	Amir Givati David Gochis Thomas Rummler Harald Kunstmann
container_volume	3
format_se	Elektronische Aufsätze
author-letter	Amir Givati
doi_str_mv	10.3390/hydrology3020019
author2-role	verfasserin
title_sort	comparing one-way and two-way coupled hydrometeorological forecasting systems for flood forecasting in the mediterranean region
title_auth	Comparing One-Way and Two-Way Coupled Hydrometeorological Forecasting Systems for Flood Forecasting in the Mediterranean Region
abstract	A pair of hydro-meteorological modeling systems were calibrated and evaluated for the Ayalon basin in central Israel to assess the advantages and limitations of one-way versus two-way coupled modeling systems for flood prediction. The models used included the Hydrological Engineering Center-Hydrological Modeling System (HEC-HMS) model and the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) Hydro modeling system. The models were forced by observed, interpolated precipitation from rain-gauges within the basin, and with modeled precipitation from the WRF atmospheric model. Detailed calibration and evaluation was carried out for two major winter storms in January and December 2013. Then, both modeling systems were executed and evaluated in an operational mode for the full 2014/2015 rainy season. Outputs from these simulations were compared to observed measurements from the hydrometric station at the Ayalon basin outlet. Various statistical metrics were employed to quantify and analyze the results: correlation, Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) and the Nash–Sutcliffe (NS) efficiency coefficient. Foremost, the results presented in this study highlight the sensitivity of hydrological responses to different sources of simulated and observed precipitation data, and demonstrate improvement, although not significant, at the Hydrological response, like simulated hydrographs. With observed precipitation data both calibrated models closely simulated the observed hydrographs. The two-way coupled WRF/WRF-Hydro modeling system produced improved both the precipitation and hydrological simulations as compared to the one-way WRF simulations. Findings from this study, as well as previous studies, suggest that the use of two-way atmospheric-hydrological coupling has the potential to improve precipitation and, therefore, hydrological forecasts for early flood warning applications. However, more research needed in order to better understand the land-atmosphere coupling mechanisms driving hydrometeorological processes on a wider variety precipitation and terrestrial hydrologic systems.
abstractGer	A pair of hydro-meteorological modeling systems were calibrated and evaluated for the Ayalon basin in central Israel to assess the advantages and limitations of one-way versus two-way coupled modeling systems for flood prediction. The models used included the Hydrological Engineering Center-Hydrological Modeling System (HEC-HMS) model and the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) Hydro modeling system. The models were forced by observed, interpolated precipitation from rain-gauges within the basin, and with modeled precipitation from the WRF atmospheric model. Detailed calibration and evaluation was carried out for two major winter storms in January and December 2013. Then, both modeling systems were executed and evaluated in an operational mode for the full 2014/2015 rainy season. Outputs from these simulations were compared to observed measurements from the hydrometric station at the Ayalon basin outlet. Various statistical metrics were employed to quantify and analyze the results: correlation, Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) and the Nash–Sutcliffe (NS) efficiency coefficient. Foremost, the results presented in this study highlight the sensitivity of hydrological responses to different sources of simulated and observed precipitation data, and demonstrate improvement, although not significant, at the Hydrological response, like simulated hydrographs. With observed precipitation data both calibrated models closely simulated the observed hydrographs. The two-way coupled WRF/WRF-Hydro modeling system produced improved both the precipitation and hydrological simulations as compared to the one-way WRF simulations. Findings from this study, as well as previous studies, suggest that the use of two-way atmospheric-hydrological coupling has the potential to improve precipitation and, therefore, hydrological forecasts for early flood warning applications. However, more research needed in order to better understand the land-atmosphere coupling mechanisms driving hydrometeorological processes on a wider variety precipitation and terrestrial hydrologic systems.
abstract_unstemmed	A pair of hydro-meteorological modeling systems were calibrated and evaluated for the Ayalon basin in central Israel to assess the advantages and limitations of one-way versus two-way coupled modeling systems for flood prediction. The models used included the Hydrological Engineering Center-Hydrological Modeling System (HEC-HMS) model and the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) Hydro modeling system. The models were forced by observed, interpolated precipitation from rain-gauges within the basin, and with modeled precipitation from the WRF atmospheric model. Detailed calibration and evaluation was carried out for two major winter storms in January and December 2013. Then, both modeling systems were executed and evaluated in an operational mode for the full 2014/2015 rainy season. Outputs from these simulations were compared to observed measurements from the hydrometric station at the Ayalon basin outlet. Various statistical metrics were employed to quantify and analyze the results: correlation, Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) and the Nash–Sutcliffe (NS) efficiency coefficient. Foremost, the results presented in this study highlight the sensitivity of hydrological responses to different sources of simulated and observed precipitation data, and demonstrate improvement, although not significant, at the Hydrological response, like simulated hydrographs. With observed precipitation data both calibrated models closely simulated the observed hydrographs. The two-way coupled WRF/WRF-Hydro modeling system produced improved both the precipitation and hydrological simulations as compared to the one-way WRF simulations. Findings from this study, as well as previous studies, suggest that the use of two-way atmospheric-hydrological coupling has the potential to improve precipitation and, therefore, hydrological forecasts for early flood warning applications. However, more research needed in order to better understand the land-atmosphere coupling mechanisms driving hydrometeorological processes on a wider variety precipitation and terrestrial hydrologic systems.
collection_details	GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4392 GBV_ILN_4700
container_issue	2, p 19
title_short	Comparing One-Way and Two-Way Coupled Hydrometeorological Forecasting Systems for Flood Forecasting in the Mediterranean Region
url	https://doi.org/10.3390/hydrology3020019 https://doaj.org/article/84f53018d8e44ba08e415f8bdab3dbd4 http://www.mdpi.com/2306-5338/3/2/19 https://doaj.org/toc/2306-5338
remote_bool	true
author2	David Gochis Thomas Rummler Harald Kunstmann
author2Str	David Gochis Thomas Rummler Harald Kunstmann
ppnlink	791048659
mediatype_str_mv	c
isOA_txt	true
hochschulschrift_bool	false
doi_str	10.3390/hydrology3020019
up_date	2024-07-04T01:56:42.489Z
_version_	1803611749736251392
fullrecord_marcxml	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ02254075X</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230307055752.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230226s2016 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.3390/hydrology3020019</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ02254075X</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJ84f53018d8e44ba08e415f8bdab3dbd4</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Amir Givati</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Comparing One-Way and Two-Way Coupled Hydrometeorological Forecasting Systems for Flood Forecasting in the Mediterranean Region</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2016</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">A pair of hydro-meteorological modeling systems were calibrated and evaluated for the Ayalon basin in central Israel to assess the advantages and limitations of one-way versus two-way coupled modeling systems for flood prediction. The models used included the Hydrological Engineering Center-Hydrological Modeling System (HEC-HMS) model and the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) Hydro modeling system. The models were forced by observed, interpolated precipitation from rain-gauges within the basin, and with modeled precipitation from the WRF atmospheric model. Detailed calibration and evaluation was carried out for two major winter storms in January and December 2013. Then, both modeling systems were executed and evaluated in an operational mode for the full 2014/2015 rainy season. Outputs from these simulations were compared to observed measurements from the hydrometric station at the Ayalon basin outlet. Various statistical metrics were employed to quantify and analyze the results: correlation, Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) and the Nash–Sutcliffe (NS) efficiency coefficient. Foremost, the results presented in this study highlight the sensitivity of hydrological responses to different sources of simulated and observed precipitation data, and demonstrate improvement, although not significant, at the Hydrological response, like simulated hydrographs. With observed precipitation data both calibrated models closely simulated the observed hydrographs. The two-way coupled WRF/WRF-Hydro modeling system produced improved both the precipitation and hydrological simulations as compared to the one-way WRF simulations. Findings from this study, as well as previous studies, suggest that the use of two-way atmospheric-hydrological coupling has the potential to improve precipitation and, therefore, hydrological forecasts for early flood warning applications. However, more research needed in order to better understand the land-atmosphere coupling mechanisms driving hydrometeorological processes on a wider variety precipitation and terrestrial hydrologic systems.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">floods</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">atmospheric-land surface coupling</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">WRF-Hydro</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Science</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Q</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">David Gochis</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Thomas Rummler</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Harald Kunstmann</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Hydrology</subfield><subfield code="d">MDPI AG, 2015</subfield><subfield code="g">3(2016), 2, p 19</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)791048659</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2777964-6</subfield><subfield code="x">23065338</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:3</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2016</subfield><subfield code="g">number:2, p 19</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.3390/hydrology3020019</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/84f53018d8e44ba08e415f8bdab3dbd4</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">http://www.mdpi.com/2306-5338/3/2/19</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/2306-5338</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_370</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4335</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4392</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">3</subfield><subfield code="j">2016</subfield><subfield code="e">2, p 19</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
score	7.397662

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Schreiben Sie uns!

Comparing One-Way and Two-Way Coupled Hydrometeorological Forecasting Systems for Flood Forecasting in the Mediterranean Region

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Zugang & Verfügbarkeit

Vorhandene Bände

Nicht das Richtige dabei?