Can Continental Models Convey Useful Seasonal Hydrologic Information at the Catchment Scale?

The development and availability of climate forecasting systems have allowed the implementation of seasonal hydroclimatic services at the continental scale. User guidance and quality of the forecast information are key components to ensure user engagement and service uptake, yet forecast quality dep...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Water resources research 2020-02, Vol.56 (2), p.n/a
Hauptverfasser: Crochemore, L., Ramos, M.‐H., Pechlivanidis, I. G.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page n/a
container_issue 2
container_start_page
container_title Water resources research
container_volume 56
creator Crochemore, L.
Ramos, M.‐H.
Pechlivanidis, I. G.
description The development and availability of climate forecasting systems have allowed the implementation of seasonal hydroclimatic services at the continental scale. User guidance and quality of the forecast information are key components to ensure user engagement and service uptake, yet forecast quality depends on the hydrologic model setup. Here, we address how seasonal forecasts from continental services can be used to address user needs at the catchment scale. We compare a continentally calibrated process‐based model (E‐HYPE) and a catchment‐specific parsimonious model (GR6J) to forecast streamflow in a set of French catchments. Results show that despite expected high performance from the catchment setup against observed streamflow, the continental setup can, in some catchments, match or even outperform the catchment‐specific setup for 3‐month aggregations and threshold exceedance. Forecast systems can become comparable when looking at statistics relative to model climatology, such as anomalies, and adequate initial conditions are the main source of skill in both systems. We highlight the need for consistency in data used in modeling chains and in tailoring service outputs for use at the catchment scale. Finally, we show that the spread in internal model states varies largely between the two systems, reflecting the differences in their setups and calibration strategies, and highlighting that caution is needed before extracting hydrologic variables other than streamflow. We overall argue that continental hydroclimatic services show potential on addressing needs at the catchment scale, yet guidance is needed to extract, tailor and use the information provided. Plain Language Summary Climatic variations can have a significant impact on a number of water‐related sectors. Managing such variations through accurate predictions is thus crucial. Continental hydroclimate services have recently received attention to address various user needs. However, predictions for months ahead can be limited at catchment scale, highlighting the need for data tailoring. Here, we compare the predictions from two hydrologic setups at catchment scale. One setup (E‐HYPE) is used in a European hydroclimate service, whereas the other (GR6J) is used for local water‐related risk assessment. Our results show that predictions from the continental setup can be as accurate as the predictions from the local model when predicting streamflow averaged over several months and when looking at changes in
doi_str_mv 10.1029/2019WR025700
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_hal_p</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_hal_primary_oai_HAL_hal_03170429v1</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2395337409</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-a4022-349a99e1609d94a2345a90a3d988d30a6315bf03e73d55b2dc633ed2df9d80f63</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kE1Lw0AURQdRsH7s_AEDrgSjb-ZNks5KJKgVKkJr6UYYXjMTG0kzmkkr-femVMSVqwf3HQ7cy9iZgCsBUl9LEHo-ARmnAHtsILRSUapT3GcDAIWRQJ0esqMQ3gGEipN0wF4zqnnm67asXd1SxZ-8dVXYRhvX8VlwxbriU0fB1_131NnGV_6tzPljXfhmRW3pa04tb5eOZ9Tmy1Xv4dOcKndzwg4KqoI7_bnHbHZ_95KNovHzw2N2O45IgZQRKk1aO5GAtlqRRBWTBkKrh0OLQAmKeFEAuhRtHC-kzRNEZ6UttB1CkeAxu9h5l1SZj6ZcUdMZT6UZ3Y7NNgMUKSipN6Jnz3fsR-M_1y605t2vm75bMBJ1jJgq0D11uaPyxofQuOJXK8BstzZ_t-5x3OFfZeW6f1kzn2QTqfri-A3KyH43</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2395337409</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Can Continental Models Convey Useful Seasonal Hydrologic Information at the Catchment Scale?</title><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><source>Wiley-Blackwell AGU Digital Library</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><creator>Crochemore, L. ; Ramos, M.‐H. ; Pechlivanidis, I. G.</creator><creatorcontrib>Crochemore, L. ; Ramos, M.‐H. ; Pechlivanidis, I. G.</creatorcontrib><description>The development and availability of climate forecasting systems have allowed the implementation of seasonal hydroclimatic services at the continental scale. User guidance and quality of the forecast information are key components to ensure user engagement and service uptake, yet forecast quality depends on the hydrologic model setup. Here, we address how seasonal forecasts from continental services can be used to address user needs at the catchment scale. We compare a continentally calibrated process‐based model (E‐HYPE) and a catchment‐specific parsimonious model (GR6J) to forecast streamflow in a set of French catchments. Results show that despite expected high performance from the catchment setup against observed streamflow, the continental setup can, in some catchments, match or even outperform the catchment‐specific setup for 3‐month aggregations and threshold exceedance. Forecast systems can become comparable when looking at statistics relative to model climatology, such as anomalies, and adequate initial conditions are the main source of skill in both systems. We highlight the need for consistency in data used in modeling chains and in tailoring service outputs for use at the catchment scale. Finally, we show that the spread in internal model states varies largely between the two systems, reflecting the differences in their setups and calibration strategies, and highlighting that caution is needed before extracting hydrologic variables other than streamflow. We overall argue that continental hydroclimatic services show potential on addressing needs at the catchment scale, yet guidance is needed to extract, tailor and use the information provided. Plain Language Summary Climatic variations can have a significant impact on a number of water‐related sectors. Managing such variations through accurate predictions is thus crucial. Continental hydroclimate services have recently received attention to address various user needs. However, predictions for months ahead can be limited at catchment scale, highlighting the need for data tailoring. Here, we compare the predictions from two hydrologic setups at catchment scale. One setup (E‐HYPE) is used in a European hydroclimate service, whereas the other (GR6J) is used for local water‐related risk assessment. Our results show that predictions from the continental setup can be as accurate as the predictions from the local model when predicting streamflow averaged over several months and when looking at changes in streamflow rather than absolute values. A good estimation of the hydrologic states, such as soil moisture or lake levels, prior to the prediction is the most important factor in obtaining accurate streamflow predictions in both setups. However, the differences in the setups can result in different uncertainties for variables other than streamflow, like in the case of soil water content. We argue that useful information is provided by continental services, yet guidance for information extraction can result into tailored information for regional needs. Key Points Continental models are often outperformed by catchment‐specific models, but models can match when forecasting seasonal streamflow anomalies Consistency in the meteorological data sets used in calibration and bias adjustment enables modeling setups to benefit from climate forecasts Caution is needed when extracting intermediate hydrologic states such as soil water content from continental models</description><identifier>ISSN: 0043-1397</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1944-7973</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1029/2019WR025700</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Washington: John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc</publisher><subject>Anomalies ; catchment applications ; Catchment area ; Catchment scale ; Catchments ; Climate models ; Climate system ; Climate variations ; Climatology ; Ecological aggregations ; Environmental Engineering ; Environmental Sciences ; Hydroclimate ; hydroclimate services ; Hydrologic models ; Hydrology ; Information retrieval ; Initial conditions ; Lake levels ; Lakes ; Moisture content ; Predictions ; Risk assessment ; Seasonal forecasting ; seasonal information ; Soil ; Soil moisture ; Soil water ; Soils ; Statistical methods ; Stream discharge ; Stream flow ; Streamflow forecasting ; Uptake ; User needs ; Water content</subject><ispartof>Water resources research, 2020-02, Vol.56 (2), p.n/a</ispartof><rights>2020. The Authors.</rights><rights>2020. This article is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-a4022-349a99e1609d94a2345a90a3d988d30a6315bf03e73d55b2dc633ed2df9d80f63</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-a4022-349a99e1609d94a2345a90a3d988d30a6315bf03e73d55b2dc633ed2df9d80f63</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-1133-4164 ; 0000-0001-5776-6275 ; 0000-0002-3416-317X</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029%2F2019WR025700$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029%2F2019WR025700$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,776,780,881,1411,11494,27903,27904,45553,45554,46447,46871</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://hal.inrae.fr/hal-03170429$$DView record in HAL$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Crochemore, L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ramos, M.‐H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pechlivanidis, I. G.</creatorcontrib><title>Can Continental Models Convey Useful Seasonal Hydrologic Information at the Catchment Scale?</title><title>Water resources research</title><description>The development and availability of climate forecasting systems have allowed the implementation of seasonal hydroclimatic services at the continental scale. User guidance and quality of the forecast information are key components to ensure user engagement and service uptake, yet forecast quality depends on the hydrologic model setup. Here, we address how seasonal forecasts from continental services can be used to address user needs at the catchment scale. We compare a continentally calibrated process‐based model (E‐HYPE) and a catchment‐specific parsimonious model (GR6J) to forecast streamflow in a set of French catchments. Results show that despite expected high performance from the catchment setup against observed streamflow, the continental setup can, in some catchments, match or even outperform the catchment‐specific setup for 3‐month aggregations and threshold exceedance. Forecast systems can become comparable when looking at statistics relative to model climatology, such as anomalies, and adequate initial conditions are the main source of skill in both systems. We highlight the need for consistency in data used in modeling chains and in tailoring service outputs for use at the catchment scale. Finally, we show that the spread in internal model states varies largely between the two systems, reflecting the differences in their setups and calibration strategies, and highlighting that caution is needed before extracting hydrologic variables other than streamflow. We overall argue that continental hydroclimatic services show potential on addressing needs at the catchment scale, yet guidance is needed to extract, tailor and use the information provided. Plain Language Summary Climatic variations can have a significant impact on a number of water‐related sectors. Managing such variations through accurate predictions is thus crucial. Continental hydroclimate services have recently received attention to address various user needs. However, predictions for months ahead can be limited at catchment scale, highlighting the need for data tailoring. Here, we compare the predictions from two hydrologic setups at catchment scale. One setup (E‐HYPE) is used in a European hydroclimate service, whereas the other (GR6J) is used for local water‐related risk assessment. Our results show that predictions from the continental setup can be as accurate as the predictions from the local model when predicting streamflow averaged over several months and when looking at changes in streamflow rather than absolute values. A good estimation of the hydrologic states, such as soil moisture or lake levels, prior to the prediction is the most important factor in obtaining accurate streamflow predictions in both setups. However, the differences in the setups can result in different uncertainties for variables other than streamflow, like in the case of soil water content. We argue that useful information is provided by continental services, yet guidance for information extraction can result into tailored information for regional needs. Key Points Continental models are often outperformed by catchment‐specific models, but models can match when forecasting seasonal streamflow anomalies Consistency in the meteorological data sets used in calibration and bias adjustment enables modeling setups to benefit from climate forecasts Caution is needed when extracting intermediate hydrologic states such as soil water content from continental models</description><subject>Anomalies</subject><subject>catchment applications</subject><subject>Catchment area</subject><subject>Catchment scale</subject><subject>Catchments</subject><subject>Climate models</subject><subject>Climate system</subject><subject>Climate variations</subject><subject>Climatology</subject><subject>Ecological aggregations</subject><subject>Environmental Engineering</subject><subject>Environmental Sciences</subject><subject>Hydroclimate</subject><subject>hydroclimate services</subject><subject>Hydrologic models</subject><subject>Hydrology</subject><subject>Information retrieval</subject><subject>Initial conditions</subject><subject>Lake levels</subject><subject>Lakes</subject><subject>Moisture content</subject><subject>Predictions</subject><subject>Risk assessment</subject><subject>Seasonal forecasting</subject><subject>seasonal information</subject><subject>Soil</subject><subject>Soil moisture</subject><subject>Soil water</subject><subject>Soils</subject><subject>Statistical methods</subject><subject>Stream discharge</subject><subject>Stream flow</subject><subject>Streamflow forecasting</subject><subject>Uptake</subject><subject>User needs</subject><subject>Water content</subject><issn>0043-1397</issn><issn>1944-7973</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>24P</sourceid><sourceid>WIN</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kE1Lw0AURQdRsH7s_AEDrgSjb-ZNks5KJKgVKkJr6UYYXjMTG0kzmkkr-femVMSVqwf3HQ7cy9iZgCsBUl9LEHo-ARmnAHtsILRSUapT3GcDAIWRQJ0esqMQ3gGEipN0wF4zqnnm67asXd1SxZ-8dVXYRhvX8VlwxbriU0fB1_131NnGV_6tzPljXfhmRW3pa04tb5eOZ9Tmy1Xv4dOcKndzwg4KqoI7_bnHbHZ_95KNovHzw2N2O45IgZQRKk1aO5GAtlqRRBWTBkKrh0OLQAmKeFEAuhRtHC-kzRNEZ6UttB1CkeAxu9h5l1SZj6ZcUdMZT6UZ3Y7NNgMUKSipN6Jnz3fsR-M_1y605t2vm75bMBJ1jJgq0D11uaPyxofQuOJXK8BstzZ_t-5x3OFfZeW6f1kzn2QTqfri-A3KyH43</recordid><startdate>202002</startdate><enddate>202002</enddate><creator>Crochemore, L.</creator><creator>Ramos, M.‐H.</creator><creator>Pechlivanidis, I. G.</creator><general>John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc</general><general>American Geophysical Union</general><scope>24P</scope><scope>WIN</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QH</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7T7</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7UA</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>H96</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>KR7</scope><scope>L.G</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>1XC</scope><scope>VOOES</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1133-4164</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5776-6275</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3416-317X</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202002</creationdate><title>Can Continental Models Convey Useful Seasonal Hydrologic Information at the Catchment Scale?</title><author>Crochemore, L. ; Ramos, M.‐H. ; Pechlivanidis, I. G.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a4022-349a99e1609d94a2345a90a3d988d30a6315bf03e73d55b2dc633ed2df9d80f63</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Anomalies</topic><topic>catchment applications</topic><topic>Catchment area</topic><topic>Catchment scale</topic><topic>Catchments</topic><topic>Climate models</topic><topic>Climate system</topic><topic>Climate variations</topic><topic>Climatology</topic><topic>Ecological aggregations</topic><topic>Environmental Engineering</topic><topic>Environmental Sciences</topic><topic>Hydroclimate</topic><topic>hydroclimate services</topic><topic>Hydrologic models</topic><topic>Hydrology</topic><topic>Information retrieval</topic><topic>Initial conditions</topic><topic>Lake levels</topic><topic>Lakes</topic><topic>Moisture content</topic><topic>Predictions</topic><topic>Risk assessment</topic><topic>Seasonal forecasting</topic><topic>seasonal information</topic><topic>Soil</topic><topic>Soil moisture</topic><topic>Soil water</topic><topic>Soils</topic><topic>Statistical methods</topic><topic>Stream discharge</topic><topic>Stream flow</topic><topic>Streamflow forecasting</topic><topic>Uptake</topic><topic>User needs</topic><topic>Water content</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Crochemore, L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ramos, M.‐H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pechlivanidis, I. G.</creatorcontrib><collection>Wiley Online Library Open Access</collection><collection>Wiley Free Content</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Aqualine</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Industrial and Applied Microbiology Abstracts (Microbiology A)</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Water Resources Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 2: Ocean Technology, Policy &amp; Non-Living Resources</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Hyper Article en Ligne (HAL)</collection><collection>Hyper Article en Ligne (HAL) (Open Access)</collection><jtitle>Water resources research</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Crochemore, L.</au><au>Ramos, M.‐H.</au><au>Pechlivanidis, I. G.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Can Continental Models Convey Useful Seasonal Hydrologic Information at the Catchment Scale?</atitle><jtitle>Water resources research</jtitle><date>2020-02</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>56</volume><issue>2</issue><epage>n/a</epage><issn>0043-1397</issn><eissn>1944-7973</eissn><abstract>The development and availability of climate forecasting systems have allowed the implementation of seasonal hydroclimatic services at the continental scale. User guidance and quality of the forecast information are key components to ensure user engagement and service uptake, yet forecast quality depends on the hydrologic model setup. Here, we address how seasonal forecasts from continental services can be used to address user needs at the catchment scale. We compare a continentally calibrated process‐based model (E‐HYPE) and a catchment‐specific parsimonious model (GR6J) to forecast streamflow in a set of French catchments. Results show that despite expected high performance from the catchment setup against observed streamflow, the continental setup can, in some catchments, match or even outperform the catchment‐specific setup for 3‐month aggregations and threshold exceedance. Forecast systems can become comparable when looking at statistics relative to model climatology, such as anomalies, and adequate initial conditions are the main source of skill in both systems. We highlight the need for consistency in data used in modeling chains and in tailoring service outputs for use at the catchment scale. Finally, we show that the spread in internal model states varies largely between the two systems, reflecting the differences in their setups and calibration strategies, and highlighting that caution is needed before extracting hydrologic variables other than streamflow. We overall argue that continental hydroclimatic services show potential on addressing needs at the catchment scale, yet guidance is needed to extract, tailor and use the information provided. Plain Language Summary Climatic variations can have a significant impact on a number of water‐related sectors. Managing such variations through accurate predictions is thus crucial. Continental hydroclimate services have recently received attention to address various user needs. However, predictions for months ahead can be limited at catchment scale, highlighting the need for data tailoring. Here, we compare the predictions from two hydrologic setups at catchment scale. One setup (E‐HYPE) is used in a European hydroclimate service, whereas the other (GR6J) is used for local water‐related risk assessment. Our results show that predictions from the continental setup can be as accurate as the predictions from the local model when predicting streamflow averaged over several months and when looking at changes in streamflow rather than absolute values. A good estimation of the hydrologic states, such as soil moisture or lake levels, prior to the prediction is the most important factor in obtaining accurate streamflow predictions in both setups. However, the differences in the setups can result in different uncertainties for variables other than streamflow, like in the case of soil water content. We argue that useful information is provided by continental services, yet guidance for information extraction can result into tailored information for regional needs. Key Points Continental models are often outperformed by catchment‐specific models, but models can match when forecasting seasonal streamflow anomalies Consistency in the meteorological data sets used in calibration and bias adjustment enables modeling setups to benefit from climate forecasts Caution is needed when extracting intermediate hydrologic states such as soil water content from continental models</abstract><cop>Washington</cop><pub>John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc</pub><doi>10.1029/2019WR025700</doi><tpages>21</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1133-4164</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5776-6275</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3416-317X</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0043-1397
ispartof Water resources research, 2020-02, Vol.56 (2), p.n/a
issn 0043-1397
1944-7973
language eng
recordid cdi_hal_primary_oai_HAL_hal_03170429v1
source Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete; Wiley-Blackwell AGU Digital Library; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals
subjects Anomalies
catchment applications
Catchment area
Catchment scale
Catchments
Climate models
Climate system
Climate variations
Climatology
Ecological aggregations
Environmental Engineering
Environmental Sciences
Hydroclimate
hydroclimate services
Hydrologic models
Hydrology
Information retrieval
Initial conditions
Lake levels
Lakes
Moisture content
Predictions
Risk assessment
Seasonal forecasting
seasonal information
Soil
Soil moisture
Soil water
Soils
Statistical methods
Stream discharge
Stream flow
Streamflow forecasting
Uptake
User needs
Water content
title Can Continental Models Convey Useful Seasonal Hydrologic Information at the Catchment Scale?
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-21T10%3A50%3A58IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_hal_p&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Can%20Continental%20Models%20Convey%20Useful%20Seasonal%20Hydrologic%20Information%20at%20the%20Catchment%20Scale?&rft.jtitle=Water%20resources%20research&rft.au=Crochemore,%20L.&rft.date=2020-02&rft.volume=56&rft.issue=2&rft.epage=n/a&rft.issn=0043-1397&rft.eissn=1944-7973&rft_id=info:doi/10.1029/2019WR025700&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_hal_p%3E2395337409%3C/proquest_hal_p%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2395337409&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true