The author regrets that Equation (7) and Figure 12 were presented incorrectly in their original paper and apologises for any inconvenience caused. The correct versions of Equation (7) and Figure 12 are given below and have been corrected in the online version of the paper.
formula

In addition, there were some errors in one of the paragraphs in the ‘Results of uncertainty across catchment type’ subsection and in Figure 14. As a result, Figure 14 and the following paragraph have been removed from the online version of the paper:

There are a few results that may be of surprise, such as the observed QMED uncertainty in non-permeable catchments being greater than that of permeable (Figure 12, left plot). This is probably due to the lack of variance around the 2-year flow where many permeable catchments see a relatively uniform distribution except for a few outliers. For example, gauging station 42010 on the River Itchen at Highbridge & Allbrook Total, where the baseflow index is 0.96. The AMAX sample is shown in Figure 14. The median can be relatively stable in such catchments. Conversely, the estimation of QMED using the QMEDcd equation in permeable catchments has a greater variance in the proportional error (Figure 13, left plot). This is probably because the calibration for the QMED equation was undertaken on catchments that were mostly non-permeable.
Figure 12

Comparison of observed QMED uncertainty across catchment types.

Figure 12

Comparison of observed QMED uncertainty across catchment types.

Close modal
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence (CC BY 4.0), which permits copying, adaptation and redistribution, provided the original work is properly cited (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).