The effect of model configuration on modelled hillslope–riparian interactions

Forest operations, extreme flooding events, and considerations for hydrologic modeling in the Appalachians—A review

“…Hydrologic responses of forest watersheds to silvicultural practices have been described as ''highly variable, and for the most part unpredictable'' (Hibbert, 1967) in the past, and remain enigmatic in the present. The complexity and scale of many hillslope processes are well beyond our ability to test extreme flood hypotheses rigorously in the field or satisfactorily simulate rainfall-runoff transformations (Hooper, 2001;Cloke et al, 2003;Uhlenbrook et al, 2003;Phillips, 2004). Thus, the study of extreme flooding events has generally been the realm of geomorphological research of specific events, which are frequently observational in nature (Hack and Goodlett, 1960;Phillips, 2002;Hicks et al, 2005).…”

Multi‐method global sensitivity analysis (MMGSA) for modelling floodplain hydrological processes

“…Recommendations include a further nest of piezometers at this hillslope-floodplain boundary to further constrain the exact behaviour of the pressure and to confirm 3D flow in the area. These data could lead to a different specification of the boundary at this point (see Cloke et al, 2003).…”

“…The model has recently been used to study high resolution floodplain hydrological processes Claxton et al, 2003;Cloke et al, 2003Cloke et al, , 2006aCloke et al, , 2006b). The flow model is described in detail in Renaud et al (2003) and Cloke et al (2006b); only a summary of the model code is given below.…”

“…For example, Cloke et al (2003) note that an overestimation of Darcian velocity can severely undermine our ability to identify hydrological processes. Sensitivity analysis techniques can be essential in the understanding of the dependencies between parameter/factor/structural configuration of the model and state variable predictions.…”

Dynamic riparian buffer widths from potential non-point source pollution areas in forested watersheds

“…Model limitations that influence outputs were described by Frankenberger et al (1999) and include: (1) Deficiencies in model structure such as the simplification of soil moisture relationships, infiltrated precipitation through the soil profile, no re-infiltration of runoff generated upslope absence of soil frost model, and simplification of the bedrock hydraulics; (2) uncertainty in input data and simplified assumptions; and (3) measuring distributed hydrology in a way that allows for meaningful comparisons between predicted and measured values and scale issues with different model components. Some other modeling assumptions and decisions that can dramatically influence the outputs of such model are discussed by Coke et al (2003). However, one should consider that this modeling approach uses inputs taken from publicly available data which does not reflect detailed soil, geology or other micro-topography variations.…”