<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing with OASIS Tables v3.0 20080202//EN" "journalpub-oasis3.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:oasis="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/oasis-exchange/table" xml:lang="en" dtd-version="3.0"><?xmltex \bartext{Hydrological processes and water security in a changing world}?>
  <front>
    <journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher">PIAHS</journal-id><journal-title-group>
    <journal-title>Proceedings of the International Association of Hydrological Sciences</journal-title>
    <abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="publisher">PIAHS</abbrev-journal-title><abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="nlm-ta">Proc. IAHS</abbrev-journal-title>
  </journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">2199-899X</issn><publisher>
    <publisher-name>Copernicus Publications</publisher-name>
    <publisher-loc>Göttingen, Germany</publisher-loc>
  </publisher></journal-meta>
    <article-meta>
      <article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5194/piahs-383-381-2020</article-id><title-group><article-title>PREMHYCE: An operational tool for low-flow forecasting</article-title><alt-title>PREMHYCE</alt-title>
      </title-group><?xmltex \runningtitle{PREMHYCE}?><?xmltex \runningauthor{P.~Nicolle et al.}?>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Nicolle</surname><given-names>Pierre</given-names></name>
          <email>pierre.nicolle@univ-eiffel.fr</email>
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2962-4362</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff2">
          <name><surname>Besson</surname><given-names>François</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Delaigue</surname><given-names>Olivier</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7668-8468</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff2">
          <name><surname>Etchevers</surname><given-names>Pierre</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9857-4592</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff3">
          <name><surname>François</surname><given-names>Didier</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff4">
          <name><surname>Le Lay</surname><given-names>Matthieu</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Perrin</surname><given-names>Charles</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff2">
          <name><surname>Rousset</surname><given-names>Fabienne</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff5">
          <name><surname>Thiéry</surname><given-names>Dominique</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Tilmant</surname><given-names>François</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff6">
          <name><surname>Magand</surname><given-names>Claire</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff6">
          <name><surname>Leurent</surname><given-names>Timothée</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff7">
          <name><surname>Jacob</surname><given-names>Élise</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff1"><label>1</label><institution>Paris-Saclay University, Inrae, HYCAR Research Unit, Antony, France</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff2"><label>2</label><institution>Météo-France, Direction of Climatology, Toulouse, France</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff3"><label>3</label><institution>LOTERR, Lorraine University, Metz, France</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff4"><label>4</label><institution>EDF-DTG, Grenoble, France</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff5"><label>5</label><institution>BRGM, Orléans, France</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff6"><label>6</label><institution>French Office for Biodiversity (OFB), Vincennes, France</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff7"><label>7</label><institution>Ministry for the ecological transition, Water and biodiversity
direction, La Défense, France</institution>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <author-notes><corresp id="corr1">Pierre Nicolle (pierre.nicolle@univ-eiffel.fr)</corresp></author-notes><pub-date><day>16</day><month>September</month><year>2020</year></pub-date>
      
      <volume>383</volume>
      <fpage>381</fpage><lpage>389</lpage>
      
      <permissions>
        <copyright-statement>Copyright: © 2020 Pierre Nicolle et al.</copyright-statement>
        <copyright-year>2020</copyright-year>
      <license license-type="open-access"><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this licence, visit <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</ext-link></license-p></license></permissions><self-uri xlink:href="https://piahs.copernicus.org/articles/383/381/2020/piahs-383-381-2020.html">This article is available from https://piahs.copernicus.org/articles/383/381/2020/piahs-383-381-2020.html</self-uri><self-uri xlink:href="https://piahs.copernicus.org/articles/383/381/2020/piahs-383-381-2020.pdf">The full text article is available as a PDF file from https://piahs.copernicus.org/articles/383/381/2020/piahs-383-381-2020.pdf</self-uri>
      <abstract><title>Abstract</title>
    <p id="d1e218">In many countries, rivers are the primary supply of
water. A number of uses are concerned (drinking water, irrigation,
hydropower, etc.) and they can be strongly affected by water
shortages. Therefore, there is a need for the early anticipation of low-flow
periods to improve water management. This is strengthened by the perspective
of having more severe summer low flows in the context of climate change.
Several French institutions (Inrae, BRGM, Météo-France, EDF and
Lorraine University) have been collaborating over the last years to develop
an operational tool for low-flow forecasting, called PREMHYCE. It was tested
in real time on 70 catchments in continental France in 2017, and on 48 additional catchments in 2018. PREMHYCE includes five hydrological models:
one uncalibrated physically-based model and four storage-type models of
various complexity, which are calibrated on gauged catchments. The models
assimilate flow observations or implement post-processing techniques.
Low-flow forecasts can be issued up to 90 d ahead, based on ensemble
streamflow prediction (ESP) using historical climatic data as ensembles of
future input scenarios. These climatic data (precipitation, potential
evapotranspiration and temperature) are provided by Météo-France
with the daily gridded SAFRAN reanalysis over the 1958–2017 period, which
includes a wide range of conditions. The tool provides numerical and
graphical outputs, including the forecasted ranges of low flows, and the
probability to be under low-flow warning thresholds provided by the users.
Outputs from the different hydrological models can be combined through a
simple multi-model approach to improve the robustness of forecasts. Results
are illustrated for the Ill River at Didenheim (northeastern France) where
the 2017 low-flow period was particularly severe and for which PREMHYCE
provided useful forecasts.</p>
  </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
<body>
      

<sec id="Ch1.S1" sec-type="intro">
  <label>1</label><title>Introduction</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S1.SS1">
  <label>1.1</label><title>Why anticipating low flows?</title>
      <p id="d1e237">In many countries, rivers are the primary supply of water. In France in 2013, 73 % of total withdrawals (38 km<inline-formula><mml:math id="M1" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) came from rivers (Banque
National des Prélèvements en Eau, Chataigner and Michon, 2017). A number of uses are
concerned (thermal power plant cooling, hydropower, drinking water,
irrigation, industry, navigation) and can be strongly affected by water
shortages in rivers  (Bousquet et al., 2003).
Furthermore, uses should be compatible with maintaining the quality of
aquatic life, through environmental constraints like minimum environmental
flows  (Acreman and Dunbar, 2004).</p>
      <p id="d1e249">There is a need for the early anticipation of low-flow periods to improve
water management and to take more timely measures to mitigate the
socio-economic and ecological impact of water shortages
(Chiew and McMahon, 2002; Karamouz and
Araghinejad, 2008). Extreme droughts which<?pagebreak page382?> occurred in France in 1976, 2003,
and more recently in 2011, 2015 and 2017 underline the need for forecasting
systems, which is strengthened by the perspective of having more frequent
and severe low flows in summer in the context of climate change.</p>
      <p id="d1e252">In 2011, the French Agency for Biodiversity (formerly ONEMA) and the
Ministry for the environment launched a research project to compare and
evaluate the ability of various hydrological models to produce low-flow
forecasts useful for real-time decision making. This project led to the
development of a low-flow forecasting tool that includes the tested
hydrological models.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S1.SS2">
  <label>1.2</label><title>Hydrological tools for low-flow forecasting</title>
      <p id="d1e263">There are a few existing approaches and tools for low-flow forecasting. A
detailed review can be found in Nicolle et al. (2014). More recently, a few
works have been carried out on this topic. Some examples are commented here:
<list list-type="bullet"><list-item>
      <p id="d1e268">conditioning methods for input scenarios for seasonal streamflow
forecasting, as tested by  Crochemore
et al. (2017). These authors investigated the impact of conditioning methods
on the performance of seasonal streamflow forecasts, to identify forecast
attributes leading to improvement or deterioration using these methods.</p></list-item><list-item>
      <p id="d1e272">investigation of the skill of seasonal ensemble low-flow forecasts in the
Moselle River (Demirel
et al., 2015). The authors compared three data-driven and conceptual
hydrological models for low-flow forecasting, and assessed the effect of
ensemble seasonal forecasts on low-flow forecasts quality.</p></list-item><list-item>
      <p id="d1e276">proposing a framework for low-flow forecasting in Mediterranean streams
(Risva et al., 2018). The authors provided a
simple and effective tool for low-flow forecasting up to six month ahead,
which needs limited data, based on the improvement of the linear reservoir
concept that represents streamflow recession.</p></list-item></list></p>
      <p id="d1e279">In France, a few operational tools have been recently developed, indirectly
or directly linked to low-flow forecasting. One can mention:
<list list-type="bullet"><list-item>
      <p id="d1e284">the Aqui-FR project  (Habets et al., 2015) that aims integrating
hydrogeological models to monitor and forecast groundwater resource at
medium range to seasonal scale, on the main aquifers of France.</p></list-item><list-item>
      <p id="d1e288"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M2" display="inline"><mml:mi>E</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>-tiage, which is an online service to help end-users for water management.
It allows monitoring river streamflow over past days and forecast
streamflows on the Adour-Garonne and Charentes catchment (south-west part of
France).</p></list-item></list></p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S1.SS3">
  <label>1.3</label><title>Objectives of the study</title>
      <p id="d1e305">The objectives of the article are to present the main characteristics of the
low-flow forecasting tool and the results obtained in operational
conditions over the 2017 summer period on a case study.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2">
  <label>2</label><title>Material and methods</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS1">
  <label>2.1</label><title>Catchment set and data</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS1.SSS1">
  <label>2.1.1</label><title>Selection of catchments</title>
      <p id="d1e331">The catchment set was built in cooperation with a variety of institutions
involved in low-flow management, on the regulatory or operational sides
(environment directions at regional and department levels, regional
irrigation managers, etc.). They provided lists of target catchments, where
human influences were requested to be limited, given the current version of
the tool does not account for upstream influences. This resulted in the
selection of 118 catchments, mainly located in north-east, north-west,
south-west, and centre of France (see Fig. 1).
The catchments show various hydrological regimes ranging from oceanic to
Mediterranean or mountainous. Table 1 shows the
main characteristics of the catchment set, with catchment sizes ranging from
9 to 111 000 km<inline-formula><mml:math id="M3" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, median elevation ranging from 52 to 1794 m
and historical streamflow data covering periods from 4 to 60 years.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T1"><?xmltex \currentcnt{1}?><label>Table 1</label><caption><p id="d1e346">Summary of the main characteristics of the 118 catchments.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><?xmltex \begin{scaleboxenv}{.93}[.93]?><oasis:tgroup cols="6">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="6" colname="col6" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Min</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">25 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Median</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">75 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">Max</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Area (km<inline-formula><mml:math id="M4" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">9</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">145</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">275</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">732</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">110 188</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Median elevation (m)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">52</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">137</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">188</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">433</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">1794</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Flow availability (yr)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">4</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">34</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">45</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">51</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">60</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Gap rate (%)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">3</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">45</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup><?xmltex \end{scaleboxenv}?></oasis:table></table-wrap>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{p}?><fig id="Ch1.F1"><?xmltex \currentcnt{1}?><label>Figure 1</label><caption><p id="d1e493">Location of the 118 catchments in France. Each outlet is shown by
a red dot.</p></caption>
            <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://piahs.copernicus.org/articles/383/381/2020/piahs-383-381-2020-f01.png"/>

          </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS1.SSS2">
  <label>2.1.2</label><title>Data</title>
      <p id="d1e510">Daily streamflow records were retrieved from the French national discharge
archive (HYDRO database, available at <uri>http://www.hydro.eaufrance.fr</uri>, last access: 20 November 2018).
Daily precipitation and temperature data originate from the gridded (8 km <inline-formula><mml:math id="M5" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 8 km) SAFRAN climate reanalysis developed by
Météo-France  (Vidal et al., 2010).
Potential evapotranspiration (PE) was computed using the formula proposed by
Oudin et al. (2005). The climatic series are
continuously available on the 1959–2018 period over France. This period
includes severe droughts conditions (e.g. in summers 1976, 1989, 2003, 2005,
2011, 2015 and 2017).</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T2" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{2}?><label>Table 2</label><caption><p id="d1e526">Percentiles of the distribution of a few climatic and hydrological
characteristics of the 118 catchments. Interannual variability values
correspond to coefficients of variation calculated on the 1958–2009 period
for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M6" display="inline"><mml:mi>P</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and PE, and on streamflow available period for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M7" display="inline"><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>. <inline-formula><mml:math id="M8" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">50</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M9" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">80</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M10" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">90</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are
respectively the 50th, 80th and 90th exceedance percentiles of the flow
duration curve.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="6">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="6" colname="col6" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Min</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">25 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Median</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">75 %</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">Max</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Mean annual precipitation <inline-formula><mml:math id="M11" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">A</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>  (mm)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">623</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">746</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">843</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">956</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">1757</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Interannual variability of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M12" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">A</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.13</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.16</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.16</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.17</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.28</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Mean annual potential evapotranspiration PE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M13" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">A</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> (mm)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">488</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">657</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">684</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">718</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">852</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Interannual variability of PE<inline-formula><mml:math id="M14" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">A</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.07</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.10</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.10</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.10</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.11</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Mean annual streamflow <inline-formula><mml:math id="M15" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">A</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>  (mm yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M16" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">57</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">182</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">266</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">341</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">1277</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Interannual variability of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M17" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">A</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.16</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.31</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.39</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.47</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">4.29</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Runoff ratio <inline-formula><mml:math id="M18" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">A</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">A</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (%)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">6</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">24</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">31</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">37</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">75</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Base-flow index (BFI) (%)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">22.6</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">48.1</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">58.3</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">73.0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">96.3</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M19" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">90</mml:mn><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">50</mml:mn><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (%)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.00</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.19</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.35</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.49</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.73</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M20" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">80</mml:mn><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (mm d<inline-formula><mml:math id="M21" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.01</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.11</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.19</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.33</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">1.53</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

      <p id="d1e973">Table 2 displays the ranges of climate and flow
characteristics of the catchment set. Hydroclimatic conditions in France are
quite variable in terms of mean annual precipitation, PE and streamflow.
There is also a strong interannual<?pagebreak page383?> variability, especially for streamflow.
On average, 31 % of rainfall become runoff for the catchment set, but this
ratio varies between 6 % and 75 %.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2">
  <label>2.2</label><title>Ensemble low-flow forecasting using hydrological models</title>
      <p id="d1e985">Models are expected to forecast streamflow from time steps <inline-formula><mml:math id="M22" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>1 to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M23" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi>L</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (with
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M24" display="inline"><mml:mi>L</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> the lead time), knowing both observed meteorological inputs and streamflow
until time step <inline-formula><mml:math id="M25" display="inline"><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and making assumptions (i.e. choosing scenarios) for the
future meteorological inputs from <inline-formula><mml:math id="M26" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>1 to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M27" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi>L</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Streamflow observations can
be used within an assimilation scheme and/or a statistical correction
procedure.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F2" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{2}?><label>Figure 2</label><caption><p id="d1e1049">Forecasting method for low-flow forecasting with hydrological
models.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=503.61378pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://piahs.copernicus.org/articles/383/381/2020/piahs-383-381-2020-f02.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e1058">Figure 2 presents the successive steps of the
forecasting method for low-flow forecasting with hydrological models:
<list list-type="order"><list-item>
      <p id="d1e1063">internal states of hydrological models are initialized using climatic
observations of past conditions until the day of forecast;</p></list-item><list-item>
      <p id="d1e1067">last streamflow observation(s) can be assimilated, typically by correcting
model internal states or by applying streamflow post-processing (e.g. model
error correction);</p></list-item><list-item>
      <p id="d1e1071">several meteorological scenarios are used as model input to provide an
ensemble of streamflow forecasts from <inline-formula><mml:math id="M28" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M29" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi>L</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>;</p></list-item><list-item>
      <p id="d1e1099">streamflow forecast are statistically analyzed to provide confidence
intervals of possible future streamflows over the time horizon.</p></list-item></list></p>
      <p id="d1e1103">This approach is quite classical. The originality in the case of PREMHYCE is
that it is applied in a multi-model framework. This has two potential
advantages: to improve the resulting forecasts and to better account for
structural uncertainty.</p>
</sec>
<?pagebreak page384?><sec id="Ch1.S2.SS3">
  <label>2.3</label><title>Input forecasting scenarios</title>
      <p id="d1e1114">The PREMHYCE operational tool adopts the classical ESP approach
(Day, 1985) in terms of future meteorological
inputs. For a given catchment, let us consider that <inline-formula><mml:math id="M30" display="inline"><mml:mi>N</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> years of past
historical climatic observations are available. In real time, one wishes to
make a forecast on a calendar day <inline-formula><mml:math id="M31" display="inline"><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> of a year <inline-formula><mml:math id="M32" display="inline"><mml:mi>Y</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> within the test period, i.e.
to forecast flows between calendar days <inline-formula><mml:math id="M33" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M34" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi>L</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. The observed
meteorological data available between days <inline-formula><mml:math id="M35" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M36" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi>L</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in the years 1 to
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M37" display="inline"><mml:mi>N</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> (i.e. <inline-formula><mml:math id="M38" display="inline"><mml:mi>N</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> scenarios) are used as input scenarios to the model, considering
that they are likely meteorological conditions for this period of the year.
Here, 57 years (1959–2016) of daily climate data from the SAFRAN reanalysis
were used for the tests during the 2017 year and 58 scenarios (1959–2017)
for the 2018 year.</p>
      <p id="d1e1201">A zero-precipitation scenario (i.e. precipitation equal to 0 for the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M39" display="inline"><mml:mi>L</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> next
days) is also used to provide the worst-case streamflow forecast. It is
associated to a daily interannual average of potential evapotranspiration.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{p}?><fig id="Ch1.F3" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{3}?><label>Figure 3</label><caption><p id="d1e1213">Example of streamflow forecast synthesis plot provided by PREMHYCE
on 11 April 2017 for the Ill River at Didenheim with GR6J.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=455.244094pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://piahs.copernicus.org/articles/383/381/2020/piahs-383-381-2020-f03.png"/>

        </fig>

<?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3">
  <label>3</label><title>The low-flow forecasting tool PREMHYCE</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS1">
  <label>3.1</label><title>Platform presentation</title>
      <p id="d1e1240">PREMHYCE is a low-flow forecasting platform that aims at providing low-flow
forecasts at a daily time step for the next 90 d to end-users. It is
based on the airGR package (Coron et al., 2017a,
b) and includes five hydrological models: Gardenia (BRGM), GR6J (Inrae),
Mordor (EDF, currently implemented under a simplified form for technical
reasons, here called IrMo), Presages (Lorraine University) and the
Safran-Isba-Modcou (SIM) modelling suite (Météo-France). More
detailed information on these models and their practical implementation for
forecasting are given by
Nicolle et al. (2014). Note
that the SIM model is run by Météo-France independently from the
platform and only the SIM outputs are uploaded into the PREMHYCE tool. This
platform is currently hosted by a server at Inrae and allows data exchange
via FTP protocol.</p>
      <p id="d1e1243">The tool includes two main modules:
<list list-type="bullet"><list-item>
      <p id="d1e1248">An off-line module for the calibration of hydrological models, to estimate
models parameters and evaluate models reliability. The module functions
allow to:
<list list-type="bullet"><list-item>
      <?pagebreak page386?><p id="d1e1253">import the catchment database (observed time series of streamflows,
precipitation, PE and temperature);</p></list-item><list-item>
      <p id="d1e1257">calibrate the hydrological models using these time series;</p></list-item><list-item>
      <p id="d1e1261">copy the calibration database to a real-time database.</p></list-item></list></p></list-item><list-item>
      <p id="d1e1265">An online real-time low-flow forecasting module, to produce forecasts every
day. The module functions allow to:
<list list-type="bullet"><list-item>
      <p id="d1e1270">update the real time database using last observed data until the day of
forecast;</p></list-item><list-item>
      <p id="d1e1274">update hydrological models internal states until the day of forecast;</p></list-item><list-item>
      <p id="d1e1278">compute streamflow forecasts up to 90 d ahead using historical scenarios;</p></list-item><list-item>
      <p id="d1e1282">provide synthetic graphical results.</p></list-item></list></p></list-item></list></p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS2">
  <label>3.2</label><title>Model calibration</title>
      <p id="d1e1293">The model parameters can be either calibrated within the platform or
specified by the user. As a physically-based model, SIM has been set up all
over France and its parameters are not further tuned for the PREMHYCE
objectives. Note that SIM is the only model for which no calibration against
observed flow data at the catchment outlet is performed. The spatially
distributed parameters used in this model are estimated regionally.</p>
      <p id="d1e1296">Users provide a list of catchments that have to be in the French HYDRO
database. For each catchment, up to four operational streamflow thresholds
can be also provided, which will be used to interpret the severity of future
forecasted low flows.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T3"><?xmltex \currentcnt{3}?><label>Table 3</label><caption><p id="d1e1302">Probability of detection to be under the vigilance and reinforced
alert threshold for each model and for the 7  and 30 d lead-times for
the Ill River at Didenheim.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><?xmltex \begin{scaleboxenv}{.95}[.95]?><oasis:tgroup cols="6">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="6" colname="col6" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Lead-time (d)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Threshold</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" namest="col3" nameend="col6" align="center">Hydrological model </oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">PRES</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">IrMo</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">GR6J</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">GARD</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">7</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Vigilance</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.92</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.83</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.85</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.84</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">30</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Vigilance</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.76</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.68</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.74</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.76</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">7</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Reinf alert</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.75</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.58</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.53</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.58</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">30</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Reinf alert</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.68</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.24</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.41</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.71</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup><?xmltex \end{scaleboxenv}?></oasis:table></table-wrap>

      <p id="d1e1450">Models are calibrated using a gradient-type method for the GR6J, IrMo and
Presages models. Two objective functions (KGE,
Gupta et al., 2009; NSE,
Nash and Sutcliffe, 1970) can be used with three prior
transformations of streamflow (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M40" display="inline"><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M41" display="inline"><mml:msqrt><mml:mrow><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msqrt></mml:math></inline-formula>, ln(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M42" display="inline"><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>)). A compromise can be
sought between several parameter sets obtained by these various functions.
Gardenia is calibrated using the Rosenbrock method with the NSE objective
function calculated on ln(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M43" display="inline"><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS3">
  <label>3.3</label><title>Real-time daily operation for low-flow forecasting</title>
      <p id="d1e1495">The tool can be run every day to provide low-flow forecasts at the daily
time step. Given the computing constraints associated with the SIM model,
the SIM streamflow forecasts are provided only once a month.</p>
      <p id="d1e1498">Several operations are made every day to provide low-flow forecasting.</p>
      <p id="d1e1501">The last observed data until the day of forecast are first used to update
model internal states. A data import process has been implemented to
retrieve meteorological and hydrological data.</p>
      <p id="d1e1504">Every day, Météo-France provides real-time gridded SAFRAN data
(precipitation, temperature) for the day before forecasting, as daily data
for the day of forecast is not yet available. Every month,
Météo-France provides the gridded SAFRAN reanalysis of these
meteorological data for the month before, to consolidate real-time SAFRAN
data. These data are averaged at the catchment scale for each catchment.</p>
      <p id="d1e1508">Users can provide the last observed streamflows up to the day before
forecasting, as daily streamflow for a catchment at the day of forecast is
not yet available. These observed streamflow data are used within
assimilation schemes or post-correction procedures for low-flow forecasting.
If observed data is not available during the seven last days, models do not
use assimilation schemes or post-correction procedure.</p>
      <p id="d1e1511">The database containing the streamflow and meteorological data is updated on
a daily basis and initial models states are computed with these data at the
day of forecast.</p>
      <p id="d1e1514">The forecasts are then computed by applying the ESP method described above.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS4">
  <label>3.4</label><title>Results</title>
      <p id="d1e1525">For each model, the PREMHYCE tool provides streamflow forecasts for each
scenario and for the no precipitation scenario, for the next 90 d, under
numerical or graphical formats. Figure 3 shows an
example of synthesis plot provided by the tool for a forecast issued on
11 April 2017 for the Ill River at Didenheim with the GR6J model. It
represents:
<list list-type="bullet"><list-item>
      <p id="d1e1530">Quantiles (0.1, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75 and 0.9) of the distribution of streamflow
forecasts for the next 90 d (blue envelop curve and blue dashed line).</p></list-item><list-item>
      <p id="d1e1534">Streamflow forecasted with the no precipitation scenario (orange line).</p></list-item><list-item>
      <p id="d1e1538">Quantile 0.1 and 0.9 of the natural variability of observed streamflow (grey
envelop curve), defined for a given calendar day <inline-formula><mml:math id="M44" display="inline"><mml:mi>d</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> as the distribution of
available streamflows in the historical years for this day. It is used as a
benchmark to compare the streamflow forecasts.</p></list-item><list-item>
      <p id="d1e1549">Probability for streamflow forecasts to be under each threshold provided by
user for the next 90 d (i.e. number of scenarios under each threshold).</p></list-item><list-item>
      <p id="d1e1553">Probability for the natural variability of observed streamflow to be under
each threshold provided by user for the next 90 d.</p></list-item><list-item>
      <p id="d1e1557">Cumulative precipitation of each meteorological scenario for the next 90 d.</p></list-item><list-item>
      <p id="d1e1561">Temperature of each meteorological scenario for the next 90 d.</p></list-item></list></p>
      <p id="d1e1564">Here are also represented observed streamflow (black line), and simulated
streamflow by GR6J using observed meteorological <inline-formula><mml:math id="M45" display="inline"><mml:mi>P</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and PE (brown line), that
are normally not available in real-time.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<?pagebreak page387?><sec id="Ch1.S4">
  <label>4</label><title>Case study: 2017 low-flow forecasts for the Ill River at Didenheim</title>
      <p id="d1e1583">In 2017, the PREMHYCE tool was launched every day from the 1 March
to the 1 October. Here, results will not include the SIM model,
which was only supplied once a month.</p>
      <p id="d1e1586">We chose to present the results of low-flow forecasts for the Ill River at
Didenheim. The Ill River is located in the north-east part of France.
Catchment area is 660 km<inline-formula><mml:math id="M46" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> and mean annual streamflow is 6700 L s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M47" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. Daily streamflow data are available over the 1974–2018 period.
Operational threshold provided by users are 1100 L s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M48" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> for vigilance, 800 L s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M49" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>
for alert, 730 L s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M50" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> for reinforced alert and 650 L s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M51" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> for crisis. They
correspond respectively to the percentiles 8 %, 4 %, 2 % and 1 % of
the daily flow duration curve. The year 2017 has been particularly severe in
terms of duration and severity of low flows: streamflow remained under the
vigilance threshold during 71 d over the March-October period, and 23 d under the crisis threshold.</p>
      <p id="d1e1659">The quality of low-flow forecasts is evaluated using the probability of
detection (POD). It is based on the contingency table for low flows
considering a threshold (Schaefer, 1990), and is
computed considering the number of Hits and Correct misses as follow:
          <disp-formula id="Ch1.E1" content-type="numbered"><label>1</label><mml:math id="M52" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">POD</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Hits</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Hits</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Correct</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Misses</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula></p>
      <p id="d1e1685">Here, an event is considered well forecasted if more than 50 % of members
are below the low-flow threshold.</p>
      <p id="d1e1689">Table 3 presents the probability of detection (POD)
for the vigilance and reinforced alert threshold for each model and for the
7  and 30 d ahead lead-times. All the models show a good ability to
detect vigilance threshold at 7 d ahead, between 0.83 for IrMo and 0.92
for PRESAGES. This ability decreases when lead-time increases, whatever the
model and the threshold. Models have more difficulties to anticipate cross
of thresholds early, which is an expected result. Surprisingly, Gardenia
presents a better POD for 30 d lead-time than for 7 d lead-time. This
may come from the post-correction method used, which is different from the
three other models. More investigations are needed to better understand this
result.</p>
      <p id="d1e1692">POD also decreases for the lower threshold (i.e. reinforced alert), whatever
the model or lead-time. Models have more difficulties to detect extreme
low-flows. This could be due to the use of meteorological input scenarios,
bearing in mind that 2017 is among the driest year on record and that the
use of ESP always tends to provide meteorological scenarios that are
statistically wetter for severe low-flow periods, leading to an
overestimation of low-flows.</p>
      <p id="d1e1695">Hydrological models present the same trends, but significant differences can
be observed for the reinforced alert threshold where PRESAGES seems to be
slightly better.</p>
      <p id="d1e1698">Models reliability has been evaluated using the containing ratio (see
Nicolle et al., 2014). For
this catchment, models appear to be quite reliable, especially Presages and
IrMo for the 7 d lead-time. For Gardenia and GR6J, reliability is improved
for the 30 d lead-time.</p>
      <p id="d1e1701">Models are able to forecast the cross of threshold 35 d in advance on
average (at least 50 % of ensemble members below 80th percentile of the
streamflow distribution), even if there are some differences between models.
Overall, comparing hydrological models to the natural variability of
streamflow shows the interest of using hydrological models: streamflow
ensemble forecast from hydrological models provide sharper and more accurate
ensemble. Moreover, using natural variability of streamflow as an ensemble
forecast does not allow detecting the crossing of thresholds: most of the
observed streamflows in the past years are superior to the thresholds. The
representation of soil humidity conditions by hydrological models at the day
of forecast is essential to improve low-flow forecasts, although this
representation remains less important than having reliable meteorological
input scenarios for longer lead-time.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5" sec-type="conclusions">
  <label>5</label><title>Discussion and conclusion</title>
      <p id="d1e1713">Improving forecasting input scenarios seems to be the most promising line of
action, in order to increase the efficiency of hydrological forecasts at
longer lead-times. Low-flow forecasting is less efficient when users need it
the most, i.e. when the conditions are particularly dry, because the ESP
method tends to overestimate real conditions by construction. Using
conditioning methods to constrain input scenarios could be an interesting
way to improve low-flow forecasting, as well as using ensemble forecasts
from meteorological models. The use of seamless inputs scenarios combining
both ESP and ensemble forecasts (typically from Météo-France or the
European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts – ECMWF) could also be
implemented.</p>
      <?pagebreak page388?><p id="d1e1716">The results shown on the Ill River are only an example. The relative merits
of the models are different among catchments. A more thorough analysis is
needed to get a more general evaluation on all the catchments where the
PREMHYCE was run.</p>
      <p id="d1e1719">The PREMHYCE project has implemented several hydrological models for
low-flow forecasting in a common structure. Results on the 2017 low-flow
periods showed the interest of using such a tool to help end-users
decisions.</p>
      <p id="d1e1722">There is ongoing work to improve low-flow forecasting by integrating
short-term or mid-term meteorological forecasts as inputs, and by taking
into account human influences such as dam or irrigation. The tool will also
give the possibility to combine streamflow forecasts in a multi-model
approach. The operational prototype currently tested by operational users
will be more widely spread to practitioners in the coming months.</p>
</sec>

      
      </body>
    <back><notes notes-type="dataavailability"><title>Data availability</title>

      <p id="d1e1729">Readers can access streamflow observations used in this study at the HYDRO database website (<uri>http://www.hydro.eaufrance.fr/</uri>) and climatic data from the Météo-France portal (<uri>https://publitheque.meteo.fr/</uri>). Hydrological and climatic data were processed into a joint database by Delaigue et al. (2020), with synthesis files available at <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.15454/UV01P1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.15454/UV01P1</ext-link>.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="authorcontribution"><title>Author contributions</title>

      <p id="d1e1744">PN wrote the first draft of the article. PN and FT performed the computations. PN, FB, OD, PE, DF, MLL, CP, FR, DT and FT contributed the methodological developments, modelling experiments and results analysis. All authors discussed the results and contributed to the final manuscript.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="competinginterests"><title>Competing interests</title>

      <p id="d1e1750">The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="sistatement"><title>Special issue statement</title>

      <p id="d1e1756">This article is part of the special issue “Hydrological processes and water security in a changing world”. It is a result of the 8th Global FRIEND–Water Conference: Hydrological Processes and Water Security in a Changing World, Beijing, China, 6–9 November 2018.</p>
  </notes><ack><title>Acknowledgements</title><p id="d1e1762">The authors thank Météo-France for providing meteorological data and
the national hydrometeorological forecasting centre (SCHAPI) for providing
streamflow data. The Regional Directions for the Environment (DREAL) are
also thanked for providing streamflow data and their feedback on the
project. The comments of an
anonymous reviewer helped to improve the manuscript.</p></ack><notes notes-type="financialsupport"><title>Financial support</title>

      <p id="d1e1767">The PREMHYCE project was funded by the French Office for Biodiversity (OFB) and the Direction for FreshWater and Biodiversity of the French Ministry for the Ecological Transition (MTES).</p>
  </notes><ref-list>
    <title>References</title>

      <ref id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Acreman, M. C. and Dunbar, M. J.: Defining environmental river flow
requirements – a review, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 8, 861–876,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-8-861-2004" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/hess-8-861-2004</ext-link>, 2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Bousquet, S., Gaume, E., and Lancelot, B.: Évaluation des enjeux
socio-économiques liés aux étiages de la Seine, Houille Blanche,  145–149, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1051/lhb/2003066" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1051/lhb/2003066</ext-link>, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Chataigner, J. and Michon, J.:   Prélèvements quantitatifs sur la ressource en eau (données 2013) (Note de synthèse Bulletin no. 2), BNPE, Agence française pour la biodiversité, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Chiew, F. H. S. and McMahon, T. A.: Global ENSO-streamflow teleconnection,
streamflow forecasting and interannual variability, Hydrol. Sci. J., 47,
505–522, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1080/02626660209492950" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1080/02626660209492950</ext-link>, 2002.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Coron, L., Perrin, C., and Michel, C.: airGR: Suite of GR Hydrological Models
for Precipitation-Runoff Modelling, available at:
<uri>https://webgr.Inrae.fr/en/airGR/</uri> (last access: 27 July 2020), 2017a.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Coron, L., Thirel, G., Delaigue, O., Perrin, C., and Andréassian, V.: The
Suite of Lumped GR Hydrological Models in an R package, Environ. Model.
Softw., 94, 166–171, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2017.05.002" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.envsoft.2017.05.002</ext-link>, 2017b.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Crochemore, L., Ramos, M.-H., Pappenberger, F., and Perrin, C.: Seasonal
streamflow forecasting by conditioning climatology with precipitation
indices, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 21, 1573–1591,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-1573-2017" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/hess-21-1573-2017</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Day, G.: Extended Streamflow Forecasting Using NWSRFS, J. Water Resour.
Plan. Manag., 111, 157–170, 1985.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Delaigue, O.,  Génot, B., Lebecherel, L., Brigode, P., and Bourgin, P. Y.: Database of watershed-scale hydroclimatic observations in France, Université Paris-Saclay, INRAE, HYCAR Research Unit, Hydrology group, Antony, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.15454/UV01P1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.15454/UV01P1</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Demirel, M. C., Booij, M. J., and Hoekstra, A. Y.: The skill of seasonal
ensemble low-flow forecasts in the Moselle River for three different
hydrological models, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 19, 275–291,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-19-275-2015" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/hess-19-275-2015</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Gupta, H. V., Kling, H., Yilmaz, K. K., and Martinez, G. F.: Decomposition of
the mean squared error and NSE performance criteria: Implications for
improving hydrological modelling, J. Hydrol., 377, 80–91,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.08.003" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.08.003</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Habets, F., Ackerer, P., Amraoui, N., Augeard, B., Besson, F., Caballero,
Y., Dreuzy, J.-R. D., Moigne, P. L., Longuevergne, L., Martin, E., Morel,
T., Regimbeau, F., Rousseau, M., Rousseau-Gueutin, P., Thiery, D.,
Soubeyroux, J.-M., Vergnes, J.-P., and Viennot, P.: Aqui-FR, un système
multi-modèle hydrogéologique à l'échelle nationale,
Géologues, 187, 105–109, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Karamouz M. and Araghinejad S.: Drought Mitigation through Long-Term
Operation of Reservoirs: Case Study, J. Irrig. Drain. Eng., 134,
471–478, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9437(2008)134:4(471)" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9437(2008)134:4(471)</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Nash, J. E. and Sutcliffe, J. V.: River flow forecasting through conceptual
models, part I. A discussion of principles, J. Hydrol., 10, 282–290,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1694(70)90255-6" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/0022-1694(70)90255-6</ext-link>, 1970.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Nicolle, P., Pushpalatha, R., Perrin, C., François, D., Thiéry, D.,
Mathevet, T., Le Lay, M., Besson, F., Soubeyroux, J.-M., Viel, C.,
Regimbeau, F., Andréassian, V., Maugis, P., Augeard, B., and Morice, E.:
Benchmarking hydrological models for low-flow simulation and forecasting on
French catchments, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 18, 2829–2857,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-18-2829-2014" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/hess-18-2829-2014</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Oudin, L., Hervieu, F., Michel, C., Perrin, C., Andréassian, V., Anctil,
F., and Loumagne, C.: Which potential evapotranspiration input for a lumped
rainfall–runoff model?: Part 2-Towards a simple and efficient potential
evapotranspiration model for rainfall–runoff modelling, J. Hydrol.,
303, 290–306, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2004.08.026" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.jhydrol.2004.08.026</ext-link>, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Risva, K., Nikolopoulos, D., Efstratiadis, A., and Nalbantis, I.: A Framework
for Dry Period Low Flow Forecasting in Mediterranean Streams, Water Resour.
Manag., 32, 4911–4932, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-018-2060-z" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s11269-018-2060-z</ext-link>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
      <ref id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Schaefer, J. T.: The Critical Success Index as an Indicator of Warning
Skill, Weather Forecast., 5, 570–575,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0434(1990)005&lt;0570:TCSIAA&gt;2.0.CO;2" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/1520-0434(1990)005&lt;0570:TCSIAA&gt;2.0.CO;2</ext-link>,
1990.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Vidal, J.-P., Martin, E., Franchistéguy, L., Baillon, M., and Soubeyroux,
J.-M.: A 50-year high-resolution atmospheric reanalysis over France with the
Safran system, Int. J. Climatol., 30, 1627–1644,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.2003" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/joc.2003</ext-link>, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.2003" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/joc.2003</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>

  </ref-list></back>
    <!--<article-title-html>PREMHYCE: An operational tool for low-flow forecasting</article-title-html>
<abstract-html><p>In many countries, rivers are the primary supply of
water. A number of uses are concerned (drinking water, irrigation,
hydropower, etc.) and they can be strongly affected by water
shortages. Therefore, there is a need for the early anticipation of low-flow
periods to improve water management. This is strengthened by the perspective
of having more severe summer low flows in the context of climate change.
Several French institutions (Inrae, BRGM, Météo-France, EDF and
Lorraine University) have been collaborating over the last years to develop
an operational tool for low-flow forecasting, called PREMHYCE. It was tested
in real time on 70 catchments in continental France in 2017, and on 48 additional catchments in 2018. PREMHYCE includes five hydrological models:
one uncalibrated physically-based model and four storage-type models of
various complexity, which are calibrated on gauged catchments. The models
assimilate flow observations or implement post-processing techniques.
Low-flow forecasts can be issued up to 90&thinsp;d ahead, based on ensemble
streamflow prediction (ESP) using historical climatic data as ensembles of
future input scenarios. These climatic data (precipitation, potential
evapotranspiration and temperature) are provided by Météo-France
with the daily gridded SAFRAN reanalysis over the 1958–2017 period, which
includes a wide range of conditions. The tool provides numerical and
graphical outputs, including the forecasted ranges of low flows, and the
probability to be under low-flow warning thresholds provided by the users.
Outputs from the different hydrological models can be combined through a
simple multi-model approach to improve the robustness of forecasts. Results
are illustrated for the Ill River at Didenheim (northeastern France) where
the 2017 low-flow period was particularly severe and for which PREMHYCE
provided useful forecasts.</p></abstract-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>
Acreman, M. C. and Dunbar, M. J.: Defining environmental river flow
requirements – a review, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 8, 861–876,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-8-861-2004" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-8-861-2004</a>, 2004.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>
Bousquet, S., Gaume, E., and Lancelot, B.: Évaluation des enjeux
socio-économiques liés aux étiages de la Seine, Houille Blanche,  145–149, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1051/lhb/2003066" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1051/lhb/2003066</a>, 2003.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>
Chataigner, J. and Michon, J.:   Prélèvements quantitatifs sur la ressource en eau (données 2013) (Note de synthèse Bulletin no. 2), BNPE, Agence française pour la biodiversité, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>
Chiew, F. H. S. and McMahon, T. A.: Global ENSO-streamflow teleconnection,
streamflow forecasting and interannual variability, Hydrol. Sci. J., 47,
505–522, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/02626660209492950" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1080/02626660209492950</a>, 2002.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>
Coron, L., Perrin, C., and Michel, C.: airGR: Suite of GR Hydrological Models
for Precipitation-Runoff Modelling, available at:
<a href="https://webgr.Inrae.fr/en/airGR/" target="_blank"/> (last access: 27 July 2020), 2017a.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>
Coron, L., Thirel, G., Delaigue, O., Perrin, C., and Andréassian, V.: The
Suite of Lumped GR Hydrological Models in an R package, Environ. Model.
Softw., 94, 166–171, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2017.05.002" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2017.05.002</a>, 2017b.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>
Crochemore, L., Ramos, M.-H., Pappenberger, F., and Perrin, C.: Seasonal
streamflow forecasting by conditioning climatology with precipitation
indices, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 21, 1573–1591,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-1573-2017" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-1573-2017</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>
Day, G.: Extended Streamflow Forecasting Using NWSRFS, J. Water Resour.
Plan. Manag., 111, 157–170, 1985.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>
Delaigue, O.,  Génot, B., Lebecherel, L., Brigode, P., and Bourgin, P. Y.: Database of watershed-scale hydroclimatic observations in France, Université Paris-Saclay, INRAE, HYCAR Research Unit, Hydrology group, Antony, <a href="https://doi.org/10.15454/UV01P1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.15454/UV01P1</a>, 2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>
Demirel, M. C., Booij, M. J., and Hoekstra, A. Y.: The skill of seasonal
ensemble low-flow forecasts in the Moselle River for three different
hydrological models, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 19, 275–291,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-19-275-2015" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-19-275-2015</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>
Gupta, H. V., Kling, H., Yilmaz, K. K., and Martinez, G. F.: Decomposition of
the mean squared error and NSE performance criteria: Implications for
improving hydrological modelling, J. Hydrol., 377, 80–91,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.08.003" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.08.003</a>, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>
Habets, F., Ackerer, P., Amraoui, N., Augeard, B., Besson, F., Caballero,
Y., Dreuzy, J.-R. D., Moigne, P. L., Longuevergne, L., Martin, E., Morel,
T., Regimbeau, F., Rousseau, M., Rousseau-Gueutin, P., Thiery, D.,
Soubeyroux, J.-M., Vergnes, J.-P., and Viennot, P.: Aqui-FR, un système
multi-modèle hydrogéologique à l'échelle nationale,
Géologues, 187, 105–109, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>
Karamouz M. and Araghinejad S.: Drought Mitigation through Long-Term
Operation of Reservoirs: Case Study, J. Irrig. Drain. Eng., 134,
471–478, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9437(2008)134:4(471)" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9437(2008)134:4(471)</a>, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>
Nash, J. E. and Sutcliffe, J. V.: River flow forecasting through conceptual
models, part I. A discussion of principles, J. Hydrol., 10, 282–290,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1694(70)90255-6" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1694(70)90255-6</a>, 1970.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>
Nicolle, P., Pushpalatha, R., Perrin, C., François, D., Thiéry, D.,
Mathevet, T., Le Lay, M., Besson, F., Soubeyroux, J.-M., Viel, C.,
Regimbeau, F., Andréassian, V., Maugis, P., Augeard, B., and Morice, E.:
Benchmarking hydrological models for low-flow simulation and forecasting on
French catchments, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 18, 2829–2857,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-18-2829-2014" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-18-2829-2014</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>
Oudin, L., Hervieu, F., Michel, C., Perrin, C., Andréassian, V., Anctil,
F., and Loumagne, C.: Which potential evapotranspiration input for a lumped
rainfall–runoff model?: Part 2-Towards a simple and efficient potential
evapotranspiration model for rainfall–runoff modelling, J. Hydrol.,
303, 290–306, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2004.08.026" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2004.08.026</a>, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>
Risva, K., Nikolopoulos, D., Efstratiadis, A., and Nalbantis, I.: A Framework
for Dry Period Low Flow Forecasting in Mediterranean Streams, Water Resour.
Manag., 32, 4911–4932, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-018-2060-z" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-018-2060-z</a>, 2018.

</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>
Schaefer, J. T.: The Critical Success Index as an Indicator of Warning
Skill, Weather Forecast., 5, 570–575,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0434(1990)005&lt;0570:TCSIAA&gt;2.0.CO;2" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0434(1990)005&lt;0570:TCSIAA&gt;2.0.CO;2</a>,
1990.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>
Vidal, J.-P., Martin, E., Franchistéguy, L., Baillon, M., and Soubeyroux,
J.-M.: A 50-year high-resolution atmospheric reanalysis over France with the
Safran system, Int. J. Climatol., 30, 1627–1644,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.2003" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.2003</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.2003" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.2003</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>--></article>
