Articles | Volume 12, issue 6
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-2463-2019
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-2463-2019
Model description paper
 | 
25 Jun 2019
Model description paper |  | 25 Jun 2019

Modular Assessment of Rainfall–Runoff Models Toolbox (MARRMoT) v1.2: an open-source, extendable framework providing implementations of 46 conceptual hydrologic models as continuous state-space formulations

Wouter J. M. Knoben, Jim E. Freer, Keirnan J. A. Fowler, Murray C. Peel, and Ross A. Woods

Related authors

Modular Assessment of Rainfall–Runoff Models Toolbox (MARRMoT) v2.1: an object-oriented implementation of 47 established hydrological models for improved speed and readability
Luca Trotter, Wouter J. M. Knoben, Keirnan J. A. Fowler, Margarita Saft, and Murray C. Peel
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 6359–6369, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-6359-2022,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-6359-2022, 2022
Short summary
Teaching hydrological modelling: illustrating model structure uncertainty with a ready-to-use computational exercise
Wouter J. M. Knoben and Diana Spieler
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 3299–3314, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-3299-2022,https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-3299-2022, 2022
Short summary
Flood spatial coherence, triggers, and performance in hydrological simulations: large-sample evaluation of four streamflow-calibrated models
Manuela I. Brunner, Lieke A. Melsen, Andrew W. Wood, Oldrich Rakovec, Naoki Mizukami, Wouter J. M. Knoben, and Martyn P. Clark
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 105–119, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-105-2021,https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-105-2021, 2021
Short summary
Flexible vector-based spatial configurations in land models
Shervan Gharari, Martyn P. Clark, Naoki Mizukami, Wouter J. M. Knoben, Jefferson S. Wong, and Alain Pietroniro
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 24, 5953–5971, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-5953-2020,https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-5953-2020, 2020
Short summary
Technical note: Inherent benchmark or not? Comparing Nash–Sutcliffe and Kling–Gupta efficiency scores
Wouter J. M. Knoben, Jim E. Freer, and Ross A. Woods
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 23, 4323–4331, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-23-4323-2019,https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-23-4323-2019, 2019
Short summary

Related subject area

Hydrology
DynQual v1.0: a high-resolution global surface water quality model
Edward R. Jones, Marc F. P. Bierkens, Niko Wanders, Edwin H. Sutanudjaja, Ludovicus P. H. van Beek, and Michelle T. H. van Vliet
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 4481–4500, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-4481-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-4481-2023, 2023
Short summary
Data space inversion for efficient uncertainty quantification using an integrated surface and sub-surface hydrologic model
Hugo Delottier, John Doherty, and Philip Brunner
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 4213–4231, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-4213-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-4213-2023, 2023
Short summary
Simulation of crop yield using the global hydrological model H08 (crp.v1)
Zhipin Ai and Naota Hanasaki
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 3275–3290, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-3275-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-3275-2023, 2023
Short summary
How is a global sensitivity analysis of a catchment-scale, distributed pesticide transfer model performed? Application to the PESHMELBA model
Emilie Rouzies, Claire Lauvernet, Bruno Sudret, and Arthur Vidard
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 3137–3163, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-3137-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-3137-2023, 2023
Short summary
iHydroSlide3D v1.0: an advanced hydrological–geotechnical model for hydrological simulation and three-dimensional landslide prediction
Guoding Chen, Ke Zhang, Sheng Wang, Yi Xia, and Lijun Chao
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 2915–2937, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-2915-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-2915-2023, 2023
Short summary

Cited articles

Addor, N. and Melsen, L. A.: Legacy, Rather Than Adequacy, Drives the Selection of Hydrological Models, Water Resour. Res., 55, 378–390, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018WR022958, 2019. 
Addor, N., Newman, A. J., Mizukami, N., and Clark, M. P.: The CAMELS data set: catchment attributes and meteorology for large-sample studies, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 21, 5293–5313, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2017-169, 2017. 
Alvarez-Garreton, C., Mendoza, P. A., Boisier, J. P., Addor, N., Galleguillos, M., Zambrano-Bigiarini, M., Lara, A., Puelma, C., Cortes, G., Garreaud, R., McPhee, J., and Ayala, A.: The CAMELS-CL dataset: catchment attributes and meteorology for large sample studies – Chile dataset, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 22, 5817–5846, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-5817-2018, 2018. 
Andréassian, V., Perrin, C., and Michel, C.: Impact of imperfect potential evapotranspiration knowledge on the efficiency and parameters of watershed models, J. Hydrol., 286, 19–35, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2003.09.030, 2004. 
Andréassian, V., Perrin, C., Berthet, L., Le Moine, N., Lerat, J., Loumagne, C., Oudin, L., Mathevet, T., Ramos, M. H., and Valéry, A.: Crash tests for a standardized evaluation of hydrological models, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 13, 1757–1764, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-13-1757-2009, 2009. 
Download
Short summary
Computer models are used to predict river flows. A good model should represent the river basin to which it is applied so that flow predictions are as realistic as possible. However, many different computer models exist, and selecting the most appropriate model for a given river basin is not always easy. This study combines computer code for 46 different hydrological models into a single coding framework so that models can be compared in an objective way and we can learn about model differences.