Physics‐based hydrologic‐response simulation: Seeing through the fog of equifinality

161 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Subsurface flow contribution in the hydrological cycle: lessons learned and challenges ahead—a review (2013, unknown): “We fully agree with the statement which was first suggested by Ebel and Loague (2006) and then was emphasized by James et al. (2010) saying ‘‘… the value of physics-based simulation of hillslope and small catchment response will be the examination of their failure to replicate experimental…”
Macropores and water flow in soils revisited (2013, background): “…models has been expressed in terms of understanding why they fail in comparison with field observations, so that they can be improved in future [Ebel and Loague, 2006; Loague et al., 2006; James et al., 2010] even though there should already long have been an expectation of failure based on…”
Expanding the role of reactive transport models in critical zone processes (2017, background): “RTMs therefore suffer similar limitations with the problems “of nonlinearity, of scale, of uniqueness, of equifinality, and of uncertainty” (Beven, 2001a, 2001b; Ebel and Loague, 2006).”