Loading…

An intercomparison of approaches for improving operational seasonal streamflow forecasts

For much of the last century, forecasting centers around the world have offered seasonal streamflow predictions to support water management. Recent work suggests that the two major avenues to advance seasonal predictability are improvements in the estimation of initial hydrologic conditions (IHCs) a...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Hydrology and earth system sciences 2017-07, Vol.21 (7), p.3915-3935
Main Authors: Mendoza, Pablo A, Wood, Andrew W, Clark, Elizabeth, Rothwell, Eric, Clark, Martyn P, Nijssen, Bart, Brekke, Levi D, Arnold, Jeffrey R
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c511t-d748c66ad8a07d3fd47a2a59c6b18d205ff7d651dda41de52545bc5bf0ad6c223
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c511t-d748c66ad8a07d3fd47a2a59c6b18d205ff7d651dda41de52545bc5bf0ad6c223
container_end_page 3935
container_issue 7
container_start_page 3915
container_title Hydrology and earth system sciences
container_volume 21
creator Mendoza, Pablo A
Wood, Andrew W
Clark, Elizabeth
Rothwell, Eric
Clark, Martyn P
Nijssen, Bart
Brekke, Levi D
Arnold, Jeffrey R
description For much of the last century, forecasting centers around the world have offered seasonal streamflow predictions to support water management. Recent work suggests that the two major avenues to advance seasonal predictability are improvements in the estimation of initial hydrologic conditions (IHCs) and the incorporation of climate information. This study investigates the marginal benefits of a variety of methods using IHCs and/or climate information, focusing on seasonal water supply forecasts (WSFs) in five case study watersheds located in the US Pacific Northwest region. We specify two benchmark methods that mimic standard operational approaches – statistical regression against IHCs and model-based ensemble streamflow prediction (ESP) – and then systematically intercompare WSFs across a range of lead times. Additional methods include (i) statistical techniques using climate information either from standard indices or from climate reanalysis variables and (ii) several hybrid/hierarchical approaches harnessing both land surface and climate predictability. In basins where atmospheric teleconnection signals are strong, and when watershed predictability is low, climate information alone provides considerable improvements. For those basins showing weak teleconnections, custom predictors from reanalysis fields were more effective in forecast skill than standard climate indices. ESP predictions tended to have high correlation skill but greater bias compared to other methods, and climate predictors failed to substantially improve these deficiencies within a trace weighting framework. Lower complexity techniques were competitive with more complex methods, and the hierarchical expert regression approach introduced here (hierarchical ensemble streamflow prediction – HESP) provided a robust alternative for skillful and reliable water supply forecasts at all initialization times. Three key findings from this effort are (1) objective approaches supporting methodologically consistent hindcasts open the door to a broad range of beneficial forecasting strategies; (2) the use of climate predictors can add to the seasonal forecast skill available from IHCs; and (3) sample size limitations must be handled rigorously to avoid over-trained forecast solutions. Overall, the results suggest that despite a rich, long heritage of operational use, there remain a number of compelling opportunities to improve the skill and value of seasonal streamflow predictions.
doi_str_mv 10.5194/hess-21-3915-2017
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>gale_doaj_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_13aa8184bd7f4f58ae7a77d120fe76fe</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A499635080</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_13aa8184bd7f4f58ae7a77d120fe76fe</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A499635080</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c511t-d748c66ad8a07d3fd47a2a59c6b18d205ff7d651dda41de52545bc5bf0ad6c223</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kk2LFDEQhhtRcF33B3hr8OSh11Q66STHYdF1YGHBVdhbqMnHmGG60yYZV_-9aUfUAVnqUJXiqbeo8DbNKyCXHBR7-8Xl3FHoegW8owTEk-YMBiI6oXr59J_6efMi5x0hVMqBnjX3q6kNU3HJxHHGFHKc2uhbnOcU0VTV1sfUhrE-v4Vp28bZJSwhTrhvs8N8LEpyOPp9fFhoZzCX_LJ55nGf3cXvfN58fv_u09WH7ub2en21uukMByidFUyaYUArkQjbe8sEUuTKDBuQlhLuvbADB2uRgXWccsY3hm88QTsYSvvzZn3UtRF3ek5hxPRDRwz6VyOmrcZUgtk7DT2iBMk2VnjmuUQnUAgLlHgnBu-q1uujVr3268HlonfxkOqFWVMGDIhSBB6jQFHGKTDO_1JbrKvD5GNJaMaQjV4xpYaeE0kqdfkfqoZ1YzBxcj7U_snAm5OByhT3vWzxkLNe3308ZeHImhRzTs7_-R4genGNXlyjKejFNXpxTf8TyOO07g</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1924521455</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>An intercomparison of approaches for improving operational seasonal streamflow forecasts</title><source>Publicly Available Content Database</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><creator>Mendoza, Pablo A ; Wood, Andrew W ; Clark, Elizabeth ; Rothwell, Eric ; Clark, Martyn P ; Nijssen, Bart ; Brekke, Levi D ; Arnold, Jeffrey R</creator><creatorcontrib>Mendoza, Pablo A ; Wood, Andrew W ; Clark, Elizabeth ; Rothwell, Eric ; Clark, Martyn P ; Nijssen, Bart ; Brekke, Levi D ; Arnold, Jeffrey R</creatorcontrib><description>For much of the last century, forecasting centers around the world have offered seasonal streamflow predictions to support water management. Recent work suggests that the two major avenues to advance seasonal predictability are improvements in the estimation of initial hydrologic conditions (IHCs) and the incorporation of climate information. This study investigates the marginal benefits of a variety of methods using IHCs and/or climate information, focusing on seasonal water supply forecasts (WSFs) in five case study watersheds located in the US Pacific Northwest region. We specify two benchmark methods that mimic standard operational approaches – statistical regression against IHCs and model-based ensemble streamflow prediction (ESP) – and then systematically intercompare WSFs across a range of lead times. Additional methods include (i) statistical techniques using climate information either from standard indices or from climate reanalysis variables and (ii) several hybrid/hierarchical approaches harnessing both land surface and climate predictability. In basins where atmospheric teleconnection signals are strong, and when watershed predictability is low, climate information alone provides considerable improvements. For those basins showing weak teleconnections, custom predictors from reanalysis fields were more effective in forecast skill than standard climate indices. ESP predictions tended to have high correlation skill but greater bias compared to other methods, and climate predictors failed to substantially improve these deficiencies within a trace weighting framework. Lower complexity techniques were competitive with more complex methods, and the hierarchical expert regression approach introduced here (hierarchical ensemble streamflow prediction – HESP) provided a robust alternative for skillful and reliable water supply forecasts at all initialization times. Three key findings from this effort are (1) objective approaches supporting methodologically consistent hindcasts open the door to a broad range of beneficial forecasting strategies; (2) the use of climate predictors can add to the seasonal forecast skill available from IHCs; and (3) sample size limitations must be handled rigorously to avoid over-trained forecast solutions. Overall, the results suggest that despite a rich, long heritage of operational use, there remain a number of compelling opportunities to improve the skill and value of seasonal streamflow predictions.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1607-7938</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1027-5606</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1607-7938</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.5194/hess-21-3915-2017</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Katlenburg-Lindau: Copernicus GmbH</publisher><subject>Basins ; Case studies ; Climate ; Climate prediction ; Climatic indexes ; Complexity ; Forecasting ; Forecasts and trends ; Frameworks ; Hydrologic cycle ; Hydrology ; Information dissemination ; Intercomparison ; Methods ; Precipitation ; Regression models ; Runoff ; Seasonal forecasting ; Solutions ; Statistical analysis ; Statistical methods ; Stream discharge ; Stream flow ; Streamflow ; Streamflow forecasting ; Studies ; Supply-demand forecasting ; Teleconnections ; Water cycle ; Water management ; Water shortages ; Water supply ; Watersheds ; Weather forecasting</subject><ispartof>Hydrology and earth system sciences, 2017-07, Vol.21 (7), p.3915-3935</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2017 Copernicus GmbH</rights><rights>Copyright Copernicus GmbH 2017</rights><rights>2017. This work is published under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c511t-d748c66ad8a07d3fd47a2a59c6b18d205ff7d651dda41de52545bc5bf0ad6c223</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c511t-d748c66ad8a07d3fd47a2a59c6b18d205ff7d651dda41de52545bc5bf0ad6c223</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-6231-0085 ; 0000-0002-6273-1592 ; 0000-0002-4062-0322</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/1924521455/fulltextPDF?pq-origsite=primo$$EPDF$$P50$$Gproquest$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/1924521455?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,864,2102,25753,27924,27925,37012,44590,75126</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Mendoza, Pablo A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wood, Andrew W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Clark, Elizabeth</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rothwell, Eric</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Clark, Martyn P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nijssen, Bart</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brekke, Levi D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Arnold, Jeffrey R</creatorcontrib><title>An intercomparison of approaches for improving operational seasonal streamflow forecasts</title><title>Hydrology and earth system sciences</title><description>For much of the last century, forecasting centers around the world have offered seasonal streamflow predictions to support water management. Recent work suggests that the two major avenues to advance seasonal predictability are improvements in the estimation of initial hydrologic conditions (IHCs) and the incorporation of climate information. This study investigates the marginal benefits of a variety of methods using IHCs and/or climate information, focusing on seasonal water supply forecasts (WSFs) in five case study watersheds located in the US Pacific Northwest region. We specify two benchmark methods that mimic standard operational approaches – statistical regression against IHCs and model-based ensemble streamflow prediction (ESP) – and then systematically intercompare WSFs across a range of lead times. Additional methods include (i) statistical techniques using climate information either from standard indices or from climate reanalysis variables and (ii) several hybrid/hierarchical approaches harnessing both land surface and climate predictability. In basins where atmospheric teleconnection signals are strong, and when watershed predictability is low, climate information alone provides considerable improvements. For those basins showing weak teleconnections, custom predictors from reanalysis fields were more effective in forecast skill than standard climate indices. ESP predictions tended to have high correlation skill but greater bias compared to other methods, and climate predictors failed to substantially improve these deficiencies within a trace weighting framework. Lower complexity techniques were competitive with more complex methods, and the hierarchical expert regression approach introduced here (hierarchical ensemble streamflow prediction – HESP) provided a robust alternative for skillful and reliable water supply forecasts at all initialization times. Three key findings from this effort are (1) objective approaches supporting methodologically consistent hindcasts open the door to a broad range of beneficial forecasting strategies; (2) the use of climate predictors can add to the seasonal forecast skill available from IHCs; and (3) sample size limitations must be handled rigorously to avoid over-trained forecast solutions. Overall, the results suggest that despite a rich, long heritage of operational use, there remain a number of compelling opportunities to improve the skill and value of seasonal streamflow predictions.</description><subject>Basins</subject><subject>Case studies</subject><subject>Climate</subject><subject>Climate prediction</subject><subject>Climatic indexes</subject><subject>Complexity</subject><subject>Forecasting</subject><subject>Forecasts and trends</subject><subject>Frameworks</subject><subject>Hydrologic cycle</subject><subject>Hydrology</subject><subject>Information dissemination</subject><subject>Intercomparison</subject><subject>Methods</subject><subject>Precipitation</subject><subject>Regression models</subject><subject>Runoff</subject><subject>Seasonal forecasting</subject><subject>Solutions</subject><subject>Statistical analysis</subject><subject>Statistical methods</subject><subject>Stream discharge</subject><subject>Stream flow</subject><subject>Streamflow</subject><subject>Streamflow forecasting</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Supply-demand forecasting</subject><subject>Teleconnections</subject><subject>Water cycle</subject><subject>Water management</subject><subject>Water shortages</subject><subject>Water supply</subject><subject>Watersheds</subject><subject>Weather forecasting</subject><issn>1607-7938</issn><issn>1027-5606</issn><issn>1607-7938</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>PIMPY</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kk2LFDEQhhtRcF33B3hr8OSh11Q66STHYdF1YGHBVdhbqMnHmGG60yYZV_-9aUfUAVnqUJXiqbeo8DbNKyCXHBR7-8Xl3FHoegW8owTEk-YMBiI6oXr59J_6efMi5x0hVMqBnjX3q6kNU3HJxHHGFHKc2uhbnOcU0VTV1sfUhrE-v4Vp28bZJSwhTrhvs8N8LEpyOPp9fFhoZzCX_LJ55nGf3cXvfN58fv_u09WH7ub2en21uukMByidFUyaYUArkQjbe8sEUuTKDBuQlhLuvbADB2uRgXWccsY3hm88QTsYSvvzZn3UtRF3ek5hxPRDRwz6VyOmrcZUgtk7DT2iBMk2VnjmuUQnUAgLlHgnBu-q1uujVr3268HlonfxkOqFWVMGDIhSBB6jQFHGKTDO_1JbrKvD5GNJaMaQjV4xpYaeE0kqdfkfqoZ1YzBxcj7U_snAm5OByhT3vWzxkLNe3308ZeHImhRzTs7_-R4genGNXlyjKejFNXpxTf8TyOO07g</recordid><startdate>20170731</startdate><enddate>20170731</enddate><creator>Mendoza, Pablo A</creator><creator>Wood, Andrew W</creator><creator>Clark, Elizabeth</creator><creator>Rothwell, Eric</creator><creator>Clark, Martyn P</creator><creator>Nijssen, Bart</creator><creator>Brekke, Levi D</creator><creator>Arnold, Jeffrey R</creator><general>Copernicus GmbH</general><general>Copernicus Publications</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>7QH</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7UA</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BFMQW</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>BKSAR</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H96</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>KR7</scope><scope>L.G</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PCBAR</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6231-0085</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6273-1592</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4062-0322</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20170731</creationdate><title>An intercomparison of approaches for improving operational seasonal streamflow forecasts</title><author>Mendoza, Pablo A ; Wood, Andrew W ; Clark, Elizabeth ; Rothwell, Eric ; Clark, Martyn P ; Nijssen, Bart ; Brekke, Levi D ; Arnold, Jeffrey R</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c511t-d748c66ad8a07d3fd47a2a59c6b18d205ff7d651dda41de52545bc5bf0ad6c223</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Basins</topic><topic>Case studies</topic><topic>Climate</topic><topic>Climate prediction</topic><topic>Climatic indexes</topic><topic>Complexity</topic><topic>Forecasting</topic><topic>Forecasts and trends</topic><topic>Frameworks</topic><topic>Hydrologic cycle</topic><topic>Hydrology</topic><topic>Information dissemination</topic><topic>Intercomparison</topic><topic>Methods</topic><topic>Precipitation</topic><topic>Regression models</topic><topic>Runoff</topic><topic>Seasonal forecasting</topic><topic>Solutions</topic><topic>Statistical analysis</topic><topic>Statistical methods</topic><topic>Stream discharge</topic><topic>Stream flow</topic><topic>Streamflow</topic><topic>Streamflow forecasting</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Supply-demand forecasting</topic><topic>Teleconnections</topic><topic>Water cycle</topic><topic>Water management</topic><topic>Water shortages</topic><topic>Water supply</topic><topic>Watersheds</topic><topic>Weather forecasting</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Mendoza, Pablo A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wood, Andrew W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Clark, Elizabeth</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rothwell, Eric</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Clark, Martyn P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nijssen, Bart</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brekke, Levi D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Arnold, Jeffrey R</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>Aqualine</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Water Resources Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>Materials Science &amp; Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Agricultural &amp; Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>AUTh Library subscriptions: ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Continental Europe Database</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric &amp; Aquatic Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 2: Ocean Technology, Policy &amp; Non-Living Resources</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric &amp; Aquatic Science Database</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>Hydrology and earth system sciences</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Mendoza, Pablo A</au><au>Wood, Andrew W</au><au>Clark, Elizabeth</au><au>Rothwell, Eric</au><au>Clark, Martyn P</au><au>Nijssen, Bart</au><au>Brekke, Levi D</au><au>Arnold, Jeffrey R</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>An intercomparison of approaches for improving operational seasonal streamflow forecasts</atitle><jtitle>Hydrology and earth system sciences</jtitle><date>2017-07-31</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>21</volume><issue>7</issue><spage>3915</spage><epage>3935</epage><pages>3915-3935</pages><issn>1607-7938</issn><issn>1027-5606</issn><eissn>1607-7938</eissn><abstract>For much of the last century, forecasting centers around the world have offered seasonal streamflow predictions to support water management. Recent work suggests that the two major avenues to advance seasonal predictability are improvements in the estimation of initial hydrologic conditions (IHCs) and the incorporation of climate information. This study investigates the marginal benefits of a variety of methods using IHCs and/or climate information, focusing on seasonal water supply forecasts (WSFs) in five case study watersheds located in the US Pacific Northwest region. We specify two benchmark methods that mimic standard operational approaches – statistical regression against IHCs and model-based ensemble streamflow prediction (ESP) – and then systematically intercompare WSFs across a range of lead times. Additional methods include (i) statistical techniques using climate information either from standard indices or from climate reanalysis variables and (ii) several hybrid/hierarchical approaches harnessing both land surface and climate predictability. In basins where atmospheric teleconnection signals are strong, and when watershed predictability is low, climate information alone provides considerable improvements. For those basins showing weak teleconnections, custom predictors from reanalysis fields were more effective in forecast skill than standard climate indices. ESP predictions tended to have high correlation skill but greater bias compared to other methods, and climate predictors failed to substantially improve these deficiencies within a trace weighting framework. Lower complexity techniques were competitive with more complex methods, and the hierarchical expert regression approach introduced here (hierarchical ensemble streamflow prediction – HESP) provided a robust alternative for skillful and reliable water supply forecasts at all initialization times. Three key findings from this effort are (1) objective approaches supporting methodologically consistent hindcasts open the door to a broad range of beneficial forecasting strategies; (2) the use of climate predictors can add to the seasonal forecast skill available from IHCs; and (3) sample size limitations must be handled rigorously to avoid over-trained forecast solutions. Overall, the results suggest that despite a rich, long heritage of operational use, there remain a number of compelling opportunities to improve the skill and value of seasonal streamflow predictions.</abstract><cop>Katlenburg-Lindau</cop><pub>Copernicus GmbH</pub><doi>10.5194/hess-21-3915-2017</doi><tpages>21</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6231-0085</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6273-1592</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4062-0322</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1607-7938
ispartof Hydrology and earth system sciences, 2017-07, Vol.21 (7), p.3915-3935
issn 1607-7938
1027-5606
1607-7938
language eng
recordid cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_13aa8184bd7f4f58ae7a77d120fe76fe
source Publicly Available Content Database; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals
subjects Basins
Case studies
Climate
Climate prediction
Climatic indexes
Complexity
Forecasting
Forecasts and trends
Frameworks
Hydrologic cycle
Hydrology
Information dissemination
Intercomparison
Methods
Precipitation
Regression models
Runoff
Seasonal forecasting
Solutions
Statistical analysis
Statistical methods
Stream discharge
Stream flow
Streamflow
Streamflow forecasting
Studies
Supply-demand forecasting
Teleconnections
Water cycle
Water management
Water shortages
Water supply
Watersheds
Weather forecasting
title An intercomparison of approaches for improving operational seasonal streamflow forecasts
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-29T20%3A22%3A47IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_doaj_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=An%20intercomparison%20of%20approaches%20for%20improving%20operational%20seasonal%20streamflow%20forecasts&rft.jtitle=Hydrology%20and%20earth%20system%20sciences&rft.au=Mendoza,%20Pablo%20A&rft.date=2017-07-31&rft.volume=21&rft.issue=7&rft.spage=3915&rft.epage=3935&rft.pages=3915-3935&rft.issn=1607-7938&rft.eissn=1607-7938&rft_id=info:doi/10.5194/hess-21-3915-2017&rft_dat=%3Cgale_doaj_%3EA499635080%3C/gale_doaj_%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c511t-d748c66ad8a07d3fd47a2a59c6b18d205ff7d651dda41de52545bc5bf0ad6c223%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1924521455&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_galeid=A499635080&rfr_iscdi=true