Articles | Volume 21, issue 7
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-3325-2017
© Author(s) 2017. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-3325-2017
© Author(s) 2017. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
Research article
| 
05 Jul 2017
Research article |
| 05 Jul 2017
Characterizing and reducing equifinality by constraining a distributed catchment model with regional signatures, local observations, and process understanding
Department of Earth Sciences, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY,
13244, USA
Department of Earth and Ocean Sciences, Nicholas School of the
Environment, Duke University, Durham, NC, 27706, USA
Brian McGlynn
Department of Earth and Ocean Sciences, Nicholas School of the
Environment, Duke University, Durham, NC, 27706, USA
Thorsten Wagener
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Bristol, Bristol, BS8
1TR, UK
Cabot Institute, University of Bristol, Bristol, BS8 1TR, UK
Related authors
No articles found.
Trevor Page, Paul Smith, Keith Beven, Francesca Pianosi, Fanny Sarrazin, Susana Almeida, Liz Holcombe, Jim Freer, Nick Chappell, and Thorsten Wagener
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 27, 2523–2534, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-2523-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-2523-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
This publication provides an introduction to the CREDIBLE Uncertainty Estimation (CURE) toolbox. CURE offers workflows for a variety of uncertainty estimation methods. One of its most important features is the requirement that all of the assumptions on which a workflow analysis depends be defined. This facilitates communication with potential users of an analysis. An audit trail log is produced automatically from a workflow for future reference.
Heidi Kreibich, Kai Schröter, Giuliano Di Baldassarre, Anne F. Van Loon, Maurizio Mazzoleni, Guta Wakbulcho Abeshu, Svetlana Agafonova, Amir AghaKouchak, Hafzullah Aksoy, Camila Alvarez-Garreton, Blanca Aznar, Laila Balkhi, Marlies H. Barendrecht, Sylvain Biancamaria, Liduin Bos-Burgering, Chris Bradley, Yus Budiyono, Wouter Buytaert, Lucinda Capewell, Hayley Carlson, Yonca Cavus, Anaïs Couasnon, Gemma Coxon, Ioannis Daliakopoulos, Marleen C. de Ruiter, Claire Delus, Mathilde Erfurt, Giuseppe Esposito, Didier François, Frédéric Frappart, Jim Freer, Natalia Frolova, Animesh K. Gain, Manolis Grillakis, Jordi Oriol Grima, Diego A. Guzmán, Laurie S. Huning, Monica Ionita, Maxim Kharlamov, Dao Nguyen Khoi, Natalie Kieboom, Maria Kireeva, Aristeidis Koutroulis, Waldo Lavado-Casimiro, Hong-Yi Li, Maria Carmen LLasat, David Macdonald, Johanna Mård, Hannah Mathew-Richards, Andrew McKenzie, Alfonso Mejia, Eduardo Mario Mendiondo, Marjolein Mens, Shifteh Mobini, Guilherme Samprogna Mohor, Viorica Nagavciuc, Thanh Ngo-Duc, Huynh Thi Thao Nguyen, Pham Thi Thao Nhi, Olga Petrucci, Nguyen Hong Quan, Pere Quintana-Seguí, Saman Razavi, Elena Ridolfi, Jannik Riegel, Md Shibly Sadik, Nivedita Sairam, Elisa Savelli, Alexey Sazonov, Sanjib Sharma, Johanna Sörensen, Felipe Augusto Arguello Souza, Kerstin Stahl, Max Steinhausen, Michael Stoelzle, Wiwiana Szalińska, Qiuhong Tang, Fuqiang Tian, Tamara Tokarczyk, Carolina Tovar, Thi Van Thu Tran, Marjolein H. J. van Huijgevoort, Michelle T. H. van Vliet, Sergiy Vorogushyn, Thorsten Wagener, Yueling Wang, Doris E. Wendt, Elliot Wickham, Long Yang, Mauricio Zambrano-Bigiarini, and Philip J. Ward
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 15, 2009–2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-2009-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-2009-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
As the adverse impacts of hydrological extremes increase in many regions of the world, a better understanding of the drivers of changes in risk and impacts is essential for effective flood and drought risk management. We present a dataset containing data of paired events, i.e. two floods or two droughts that occurred in the same area. The dataset enables comparative analyses and allows detailed context-specific assessments. Additionally, it supports the testing of socio-hydrological models.
Rosanna A. Lane, Gemma Coxon, Jim Freer, Jan Seibert, and Thorsten Wagener
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 5535–5554, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-5535-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-5535-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
This study modelled the impact of climate change on river high flows across Great Britain (GB). Generally, results indicated an increase in the magnitude and frequency of high flows along the west coast of GB by 2050–2075. In contrast, average flows decreased across GB. All flow projections contained large uncertainties; the climate projections were the largest source of uncertainty overall but hydrological modelling uncertainties were considerable in some regions.
Tom Gleeson, Thorsten Wagener, Petra Döll, Samuel C. Zipper, Charles West, Yoshihide Wada, Richard Taylor, Bridget Scanlon, Rafael Rosolem, Shams Rahman, Nurudeen Oshinlaja, Reed Maxwell, Min-Hui Lo, Hyungjun Kim, Mary Hill, Andreas Hartmann, Graham Fogg, James S. Famiglietti, Agnès Ducharne, Inge de Graaf, Mark Cuthbert, Laura Condon, Etienne Bresciani, and Marc F. P. Bierkens
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 7545–7571, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-7545-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-7545-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Groundwater is increasingly being included in large-scale (continental to global) land surface and hydrologic simulations. However, it is challenging to evaluate these simulations because groundwater is
hiddenunderground and thus hard to measure. We suggest using multiple complementary strategies to assess the performance of a model (
model evaluation).
Thorsten Wagener, Dragan Savic, David Butler, Reza Ahmadian, Tom Arnot, Jonathan Dawes, Slobodan Djordjevic, Roger Falconer, Raziyeh Farmani, Debbie Ford, Jan Hofman, Zoran Kapelan, Shunqi Pan, and Ross Woods
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 2721–2738, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-2721-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-2721-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
How can we effectively train PhD candidates both (i) across different knowledge domains in water science and engineering and (ii) in computer science? To address this issue, the Water Informatics in Science and Engineering Centre for Doctoral Training (WISE CDT) offers a postgraduate programme that fosters enhanced levels of innovation and collaboration by training a cohort of engineers and scientists at the boundary of water informatics, science and engineering.
Elisa Bozzolan, Elizabeth Holcombe, Francesca Pianosi, and Thorsten Wagener
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 20, 3161–3177, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-20-3161-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-20-3161-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
We include informal housing in slope stability analysis, considering different slope properties and precipitation events (including climate change). The dominant failure processes are identified, and their relative role in slope failure is quantified. A new rainfall threshold is assessed for urbanised slopes. Instability
rulesare provided to recognise urbanised slopes most at risk. The methodology is suitable for regions with scarce field measurements and landslide inventories.
Gemma Coxon, Nans Addor, John P. Bloomfield, Jim Freer, Matt Fry, Jamie Hannaford, Nicholas J. K. Howden, Rosanna Lane, Melinda Lewis, Emma L. Robinson, Thorsten Wagener, and Ross Woods
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 12, 2459–2483, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-12-2459-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-12-2459-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
We present the first large-sample catchment hydrology dataset for Great Britain. The dataset collates river flows, catchment attributes, and catchment boundaries for 671 catchments across Great Britain. We characterise the topography, climate, streamflow, land cover, soils, hydrogeology, human influence, and discharge uncertainty of each catchment. The dataset is publicly available for the community to use in a wide range of environmental and modelling analyses.
Tom Gleeson, Thorsten Wagener, Petra Döll, Samuel C. Zipper, Charles West, Yoshihide Wada, Richard Taylor, Bridget Scanlon, Rafael Rosolem, Shams Rahman, Nurudeen Oshinlaja, Reed Maxwell, Min-Hui Lo, Hyungjun Kim, Mary Hill, Andreas Hartmann, Graham Fogg, James S. Famiglietti, Agnès Ducharne, Inge de Graaf, Mark Cuthbert, Laura Condon, Etienne Bresciani, and Marc F. P. Bierkens
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2020-378, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2020-378, 2020
Revised manuscript not accepted
Rosanna A. Lane, Gemma Coxon, Jim E. Freer, Thorsten Wagener, Penny J. Johnes, John P. Bloomfield, Sheila Greene, Christopher J. A. Macleod, and Sim M. Reaney
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 23, 4011–4032, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-23-4011-2019, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-23-4011-2019, 2019
Short summary
Short summary
We evaluated four hydrological model structures and their parameters on over 1100 catchments across Great Britain, considering modelling uncertainties. Models performed well for most catchments but failed in parts of Scotland and south-eastern England. Failures were often linked to inconsistencies in the water balance. This research shows what conceptual lumped models can achieve, gives insights into where and why these models may fail, and provides a benchmark of national modelling capability.
Gemma Coxon, Jim Freer, Rosanna Lane, Toby Dunne, Wouter J. M. Knoben, Nicholas J. K. Howden, Niall Quinn, Thorsten Wagener, and Ross Woods
Geosci. Model Dev., 12, 2285–2306, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-2285-2019, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-2285-2019, 2019
Short summary
Short summary
DECIPHeR (Dynamic fluxEs and ConnectIvity for Predictions of Hydrology) is a new modelling framework that can be applied from small catchment to continental scales for complex river basins. This paper describes the modelling framework and its key components and demonstrates the model’s ability to be applied across a large model domain. This work highlights the potential for catchment- to continental-scale predictions of streamflow to support robust environmental management and policy decisions.
Fanny Sarrazin, Andreas Hartmann, Francesca Pianosi, Rafael Rosolem, and Thorsten Wagener
Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 4933–4964, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-4933-2018, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-4933-2018, 2018
Short summary
Short summary
We propose the first large-scale vegetation–recharge model for karst regions (V2Karst), which enables the analysis of the impact of changes in climate and land cover on karst groundwater recharge. We demonstrate the plausibility of V2Karst simulations against observations at FLUXNET sites and of controlling modelled processes using sensitivity analysis. We perform virtual experiments to further test the model and gain insight into its sensitivity to precipitation pattern and vegetation cover.
Keith J. Beven, Susana Almeida, Willy P. Aspinall, Paul D. Bates, Sarka Blazkova, Edoardo Borgomeo, Jim Freer, Katsuichiro Goda, Jim W. Hall, Jeremy C. Phillips, Michael Simpson, Paul J. Smith, David B. Stephenson, Thorsten Wagener, Matt Watson, and Kate L. Wilkins
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 18, 2741–2768, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-18-2741-2018, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-18-2741-2018, 2018
Short summary
Short summary
This paper discusses how uncertainties resulting from lack of knowledge are considered in a number of different natural hazard areas including floods, landslides and debris flows, dam safety, droughts, earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic ash clouds and pyroclastic flows, and wind storms. As every analysis is necessarily conditional on the assumptions made about the nature of sources of such uncertainties it is also important to follow the guidelines for good practice suggested in Part 2.
Keith J. Beven, Willy P. Aspinall, Paul D. Bates, Edoardo Borgomeo, Katsuichiro Goda, Jim W. Hall, Trevor Page, Jeremy C. Phillips, Michael Simpson, Paul J. Smith, Thorsten Wagener, and Matt Watson
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 18, 2769–2783, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-18-2769-2018, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-18-2769-2018, 2018
Short summary
Short summary
Part 1 of this paper discussed the uncertainties arising from gaps in knowledge or limited understanding of the processes involved in different natural hazard areas. These are the epistemic uncertainties that can be difficult to constrain, especially in terms of event or scenario probabilities. A conceptual framework for good practice in dealing with epistemic uncertainties is outlined and implications of applying the principles to natural hazard science are discussed.
Zhao Chen, Andreas Hartmann, Thorsten Wagener, and Nico Goldscheider
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 22, 3807–3823, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-3807-2018, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-3807-2018, 2018
Short summary
Short summary
This paper investigates potential impacts of climate change on mountainous karst systems. Our study highlights the fast groundwater dynamics in mountainous karst catchments, which make them highly vulnerable to future changing-climate conditions. Additionally, this work presents a novel holistic modeling approach, which can be transferred to similar karst systems for studying the impact of climate change on local karst water resources.
Kendra E. Kaiser, Brian L. McGlynn, and John E. Dore
Biogeosciences, 15, 3143–3167, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-15-3143-2018, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-15-3143-2018, 2018
Short summary
Short summary
Soil methane (CH4) fluxes are highly variable across natural landscapes, yet research on the variability of fluxes in unsaturated soils has not been as prevalent as in saturated portions of the landscape. In this study we measured CH4 fluxes and environmental variables across a small mountainous watershed in central Montana. We found that CH4 consumption in upland soils increased as the watershed became more dry and that a combination of terrain metrics can represent 47 % of the variability.
Rob Lamb, Willy Aspinall, Henry Odbert, and Thorsten Wagener
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 17, 1393–1409, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-17-1393-2017, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-17-1393-2017, 2017
Short summary
Short summary
Scour (erosion) during floods can cause bridges to collapse. Modern design and maintenance mitigates the risk, so failures are rare. The residual risk is uncertain, but expert knowledge can help constrain it. We asked 19 experts about scour risk using methods designed to treat judgements alongside other scientific data. The findings identified knowledge gaps about scour processes and suggest wider uncertainty about scour risk than might be inferred from observation, models or experiments alone.
Anna Kuentz, Berit Arheimer, Yeshewatesfa Hundecha, and Thorsten Wagener
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 21, 2863–2879, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-2863-2017, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-2863-2017, 2017
Short summary
Short summary
Our study aims to explore and understand the physical controls on spatial patterns of pan-European flow signatures by taking advantage of large open datasets. Using tools like correlation analysis, stepwise regressions and different types of catchment classifications, we explore the relationships between catchment descriptors and flow signatures across 35 215 catchments which cover a wide range of pan-European physiographic and anthropogenic characteristics.
Joost Iwema, Rafael Rosolem, Mostaquimur Rahman, Eleanor Blyth, and Thorsten Wagener
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 21, 2843–2861, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-2843-2017, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-2843-2017, 2017
Short summary
Short summary
We investigated whether the simulation of water flux from the land surface to the atmosphere (using the Joint UK Land Environment Simulator model) could be improved by replacing traditional soil moisture sensor data with data from the more novel Cosmic-Ray Neutron soil moisture sensor. Despite observed differences between the two types of soil moisture measurement data, we found no substantial differences in improvement in water flux estimation, based on multiple calibration experiments.
Susana Almeida, Elizabeth Ann Holcombe, Francesca Pianosi, and Thorsten Wagener
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 17, 225–241, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-17-225-2017, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-17-225-2017, 2017
Short summary
Short summary
Landslides threaten communities globally, yet predicting their occurrence is challenged by uncertainty about slope properties and climate change. We present an approach to identify the dominant drivers of slope instability and the critical thresholds at which slope failure may occur. This information helps decision makers to target data acquisition to improve landslide predictability, and supports policy development to reduce landslide occurrence and impacts in highly uncertain environments.
Melissa Wood, Renaud Hostache, Jeffrey Neal, Thorsten Wagener, Laura Giustarini, Marco Chini, Giovani Corato, Patrick Matgen, and Paul Bates
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 20, 4983–4997, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-20-4983-2016, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-20-4983-2016, 2016
Short summary
Short summary
We propose a methodology to calibrate the bankfull channel depth and roughness parameters in a 2-D hydraulic model using an archive of medium-resolution SAR satellite-derived flood extent maps. We used an identifiability methodology to locate the parameters and suggest the SAR images which could be optimally used for model calibration. We found that SAR images acquired around the flood peak provide best calibration potential for the depth parameter, improving when SAR images are combined.
Remko Nijzink, Christopher Hutton, Ilias Pechlivanidis, René Capell, Berit Arheimer, Jim Freer, Dawei Han, Thorsten Wagener, Kevin McGuire, Hubert Savenije, and Markus Hrachowitz
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 20, 4775–4799, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-20-4775-2016, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-20-4775-2016, 2016
Short summary
Short summary
The core component of many hydrological systems, the moisture storage capacity available to vegetation, is typically treated as a calibration parameter in hydrological models and often considered to remain constant in time. In this paper we test the potential of a recently introduced method to robustly estimate catchment-scale root-zone storage capacities exclusively based on climate data to reproduce the temporal evolution of root-zone storage under change (deforestation).
Anne F. Van Loon, Kerstin Stahl, Giuliano Di Baldassarre, Julian Clark, Sally Rangecroft, Niko Wanders, Tom Gleeson, Albert I. J. M. Van Dijk, Lena M. Tallaksen, Jamie Hannaford, Remko Uijlenhoet, Adriaan J. Teuling, David M. Hannah, Justin Sheffield, Mark Svoboda, Boud Verbeiren, Thorsten Wagener, and Henny A. J. Van Lanen
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 20, 3631–3650, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-20-3631-2016, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-20-3631-2016, 2016
Short summary
Short summary
In the Anthropocene, drought cannot be viewed as a natural hazard independent of people. Drought can be alleviated or made worse by human activities and drought impacts are dependent on a myriad of factors. In this paper, we identify research gaps and suggest a framework that will allow us to adequately analyse and manage drought in the Anthropocene. We need to focus on attribution of drought to different drivers, linking drought to its impacts, and feedbacks between drought and society.
András Bárdossy, Yingchun Huang, and Thorsten Wagener
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 20, 2913–2928, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-20-2913-2016, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-20-2913-2016, 2016
Short summary
Short summary
This paper explores the simultaneous calibration method to transfer model parameters from gauged to ungauged catchments. It is hypothesized that the model parameters can be separated into two categories: one reflecting the dynamic behavior and the other representing the long-term water balance. The results of three numerical experiments indicate that a good parameter transfer to ungauged catchments can be achieved through simultaneous calibration of models for a number of catchments.
Susana Almeida, Nataliya Le Vine, Neil McIntyre, Thorsten Wagener, and Wouter Buytaert
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 20, 887–901, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-20-887-2016, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-20-887-2016, 2016
Short summary
Short summary
The absence of flow data to calibrate hydrologic models may reduce the ability of such models to reliably inform water resources management. To address this limitation, it is common to condition hydrological model parameters on regionalized signatures. In this study, we justify the inclusion of larger sets of signatures in the regionalization procedure if their error correlations are formally accounted for and thus enable a more complete use of all available information.
Yakov A. Pachepsky, Gonzalo Martinez, Feng Pan, Thorsten Wagener, and Thomas Nicholson
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2016-46, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2016-46, 2016
Preprint withdrawn
Short summary
Short summary
Hydrological models are frequently evaluated in terms of their accuracy to predict observations. However, we noticed that such approaches could not fully reflect the differences in their ability to represent the patterns of the observations nor the differences between the abstractions assumed in the models. We showed that information theory-based metrics are very useful for that purpose and provide additional criterion to choose the most appropriate models for specific watershed characterisitcs.
K. J. Beven, S. Almeida, W. P. Aspinall, P. D. Bates, S. Blazkova, E. Borgomeo, K. Goda, J. C. Phillips, M. Simpson, P. J. Smith, D. B. Stephenson, T. Wagener, M. Watson, and K. L. Wilkins
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2015-295, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2015-295, 2016
Preprint withdrawn
Short summary
Short summary
Uncertainties in natural hazard risk assessment are generally dominated by the sources arising from lack of knowledge or understanding of the processes involved. This is Part 2 of 2 papers reviewing these epistemic uncertainties and covers different areas of natural hazards including landslides and debris flows, dam safety, droughts, earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic ash clouds and pyroclastic flows, and wind storms. It is based on the work of the UK CREDIBLE research consortium.
K. J. Beven, W. P. Aspinall, P. D. Bates, E. Borgomeo, K. Goda, J. W. Hall, T. Page, J. C. Phillips, J. T. Rougier, M. Simpson, D. B. Stephenson, P. J. Smith, T. Wagener, and M. Watson
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/nhessd-3-7333-2015, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhessd-3-7333-2015, 2015
Preprint withdrawn
Short summary
Short summary
Uncertainties in natural hazard risk assessment are generally dominated by the sources arising from lack of knowledge or understanding of the processes involved. This is Part 1 of 2 papers reviewing these epistemic uncertainties that can be difficult to constrain, especially in terms of event or scenario probabilities. It is based on the work of the CREDIBLE research consortium on Risk and Uncertainty in Natural Hazards.
J. Iwema, R. Rosolem, R. Baatz, T. Wagener, and H. R. Bogena
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 19, 3203–3216, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-19-3203-2015, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-19-3203-2015, 2015
Short summary
Short summary
The cosmic-ray neutron sensor can provide soil moisture content averages over areas of roughly half a kilometre by half a kilometre. Although this sensor is usually calibrated using soil samples taken on a single day, we found that multiple sampling days are needed. The calibration results were also affected by the soil wetness conditions of the sampling days. The outcome of this study will help researchers to calibrate/validate new cosmic-ray neutron sensor sites more accurately.
A. Hartmann, T. Gleeson, R. Rosolem, F. Pianosi, Y. Wada, and T. Wagener
Geosci. Model Dev., 8, 1729–1746, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-1729-2015, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-1729-2015, 2015
Short summary
Short summary
We present a new approach to assess karstic groundwater recharge over Europe and the Mediterranean. Cluster analysis is used to subdivide all karst regions into four typical karst landscapes and to simulate karst recharge with a process-based karst model. We estimate its parameters by a combination of a priori information and observations of soil moisture and evapotranspiration. Independent observations of recharge that present large-scale models significantly under-estimate karstic recharge.
S. Ceola, B. Arheimer, E. Baratti, G. Blöschl, R. Capell, A. Castellarin, J. Freer, D. Han, M. Hrachowitz, Y. Hundecha, C. Hutton, G. Lindström, A. Montanari, R. Nijzink, J. Parajka, E. Toth, A. Viglione, and T. Wagener
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 19, 2101–2117, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-19-2101-2015, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-19-2101-2015, 2015
Short summary
Short summary
We present the outcomes of a collaborative hydrological experiment undertaken by five different international research groups in a virtual laboratory. Moving from the definition of accurate protocols, a rainfall-runoff model was independently applied by the research groups, which then engaged in a comparative discussion. The results revealed that sharing protocols and running the experiment within a controlled environment is fundamental for ensuring experiment repeatability and reproducibility.
U. Ehret, H. V. Gupta, M. Sivapalan, S. V. Weijs, S. J. Schymanski, G. Blöschl, A. N. Gelfan, C. Harman, A. Kleidon, T. A. Bogaard, D. Wang, T. Wagener, U. Scherer, E. Zehe, M. F. P. Bierkens, G. Di Baldassarre, J. Parajka, L. P. H. van Beek, A. van Griensven, M. C. Westhoff, and H. C. Winsemius
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 18, 649–671, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-18-649-2014, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-18-649-2014, 2014
J. D. Herman, J. B. Kollat, P. M. Reed, and T. Wagener
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 17, 5109–5125, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-17-5109-2013, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-17-5109-2013, 2013
A. Hartmann, M. Weiler, T. Wagener, J. Lange, M. Kralik, F. Humer, N. Mizyed, A. Rimmer, J. A. Barberá, B. Andreo, C. Butscher, and P. Huggenberger
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 17, 3305–3321, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-17-3305-2013, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-17-3305-2013, 2013
Related subject area
Subject: Catchment hydrology | Techniques and Approaches: Uncertainty analysis
Technical note: Complexity–uncertainty curve (c-u-curve) – a method to analyse, classify and compare dynamical systems
Technical note: The CREDIBLE Uncertainty Estimation (CURE) toolbox: facilitating the communication of epistemic uncertainty
Why do our rainfall–runoff models keep underestimating the peak flows?
Use of expert elicitation to assign weights to climate and hydrological models in climate impact studies
Pitfalls and a feasible solution for using KGE as an informal likelihood function in MCMC methods: DREAM(ZS) as an example
Benchmarking global hydrological and land surface models against GRACE in a medium-sized tropical basin
Guidance on evaluating parametric model uncertainty at decision-relevant scales
Quantifying input uncertainty in the calibration of water quality models: reordering errors via the secant method
Sequential data assimilation for real-time probabilistic flood inundation mapping
Key challenges facing the application of the conductivity mass balance method: a case study of the Mississippi River basin
Coupled machine learning and the limits of acceptability approach applied in parameter identification for a distributed hydrological model
A systematic assessment of uncertainties in large-scale soil loss estimation from different representations of USLE input factors – a case study for Kenya and Uganda
Technical note: Uncertainty in multi-source partitioning using large tracer data sets
Assessment of climate change impact and difference on the river runoff in four basins in China under 1.5 and 2.0 °C global warming
A likelihood framework for deterministic hydrological models and the importance of non-stationary autocorrelation
Technical note: Analytical sensitivity analysis and uncertainty estimation of baseflow index calculated by a two-component hydrograph separation method with conductivity as a tracer
Understanding the water cycle over the upper Tarim Basin: retrospecting the estimated discharge bias to atmospheric variables and model structure
The effect of input data resolution and complexity on the uncertainty of hydrological predictions in a humid vegetated watershed
Parameter uncertainty analysis for an operational hydrological model using residual-based and limits of acceptability approaches
Technical note: Pitfalls in using log-transformed flows within the KGE criterion
Improvement of model evaluation by incorporating prediction and measurement uncertainty
Transferability of climate simulation uncertainty to hydrological impacts
Intercomparison of different uncertainty sources in hydrological climate change projections for an alpine catchment (upper Clutha River, New Zealand)
Mapping (dis)agreement in hydrologic projections
Consistency assessment of rating curve data in various locations using Bidirectional Reach (BReach)
The critical role of uncertainty in projections of hydrological extremes
Residual uncertainty estimation using instance-based learning with applications to hydrologic forecasting
Effects of uncertainty in soil properties on simulated hydrological states and fluxes at different spatio-temporal scales
Extending flood forecasting lead time in a large watershed by coupling WRF QPF with a distributed hydrological model
Quantifying uncertainty on sediment loads using bootstrap confidence intervals
Event-scale power law recession analysis: quantifying methodological uncertainty
Disentangling timing and amplitude errors in streamflow simulations
Reliability of lumped hydrological modeling in a semi-arid mountainous catchment facing water-use changes
Using dry and wet year hydroclimatic extremes to guide future hydrologic projections
Uncertainty contributions to low-flow projections in Austria
Accounting for dependencies in regionalized signatures for predictions in ungauged catchments
Climate change and its impacts on river discharge in two climate regions in China
Uncertainty in hydrological signatures
Climate model uncertainty versus conceptual geological uncertainty in hydrological modeling
Estimation of predictive hydrologic uncertainty using the quantile regression and UNEEC methods and their comparison on contrasting catchments
Transferring global uncertainty estimates from gauged to ungauged catchments
Spatial sensitivity analysis of snow cover data in a distributed rainfall-runoff model
Uncertainty reduction and parameter estimation of a distributed hydrological model with ground and remote-sensing data
The skill of seasonal ensemble low-flow forecasts in the Moselle River for three different hydrological models
Flow pathways and nutrient transport mechanisms drive hydrochemical sensitivity to climate change across catchments with different geology and topography
The importance of hydrological uncertainty assessment methods in climate change impact studies
Regional water balance modelling using flow-duration curves with observational uncertainties
Climate change impacts on the hydrologic regime of a Canadian river: comparing uncertainties arising from climate natural variability and lumped hydrological model structures
From maps to movies: high-resolution time-varying sensitivity analysis for spatially distributed watershed models
Bridging the gap between GLUE and formal statistical approaches: approximate Bayesian computation
Uwe Ehret and Pankaj Dey
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 27, 2591–2605, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-2591-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-2591-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
We propose the
c-u-curvemethod to characterize dynamical (time-variable) systems of all kinds.
Uis for uncertainty and expresses how well a system can be predicted in a given period of time.
Cis for complexity and expresses how predictability differs between different periods, i.e. how well predictability itself can be predicted. The method helps to better classify and compare dynamical systems across a wide range of disciplines, thus facilitating scientific collaboration.
Trevor Page, Paul Smith, Keith Beven, Francesca Pianosi, Fanny Sarrazin, Susana Almeida, Liz Holcombe, Jim Freer, Nick Chappell, and Thorsten Wagener
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 27, 2523–2534, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-2523-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-2523-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
This publication provides an introduction to the CREDIBLE Uncertainty Estimation (CURE) toolbox. CURE offers workflows for a variety of uncertainty estimation methods. One of its most important features is the requirement that all of the assumptions on which a workflow analysis depends be defined. This facilitates communication with potential users of an analysis. An audit trail log is produced automatically from a workflow for future reference.
András Bárdossy and Faizan Anwar
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 27, 1987–2000, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-1987-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-1987-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
This study demonstrates the fact that the large river flows forecasted by the models show an underestimation that is inversely related to the number of locations where precipitation is recorded, which is independent of the model. The higher the number of points where the amount of precipitation is recorded, the better the estimate of the river flows.
Eva Sebok, Hans Jørgen Henriksen, Ernesto Pastén-Zapata, Peter Berg, Guillaume Thirel, Anthony Lemoine, Andrea Lira-Loarca, Christiana Photiadou, Rafael Pimentel, Paul Royer-Gaspard, Erik Kjellström, Jens Hesselbjerg Christensen, Jean Philippe Vidal, Philippe Lucas-Picher, Markus G. Donat, Giovanni Besio, María José Polo, Simon Stisen, Yvan Caballero, Ilias G. Pechlivanidis, Lars Troldborg, and Jens Christian Refsgaard
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 5605–5625, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-5605-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-5605-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Hydrological models projecting the impact of changing climate carry a lot of uncertainty. Thus, these models usually have a multitude of simulations using different future climate data. This study used the subjective opinion of experts to assess which climate and hydrological models are the most likely to correctly predict climate impacts, thereby easing the computational burden. The experts could select more likely hydrological models, while the climate models were deemed equally probable.
Yan Liu, Jaime Fernández-Ortega, Matías Mudarra, and Andreas Hartmann
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 5341–5355, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-5341-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-5341-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
We adapt the informal Kling–Gupta efficiency (KGE) with a gamma distribution to apply it as an informal likelihood function in the DiffeRential Evolution Adaptive Metropolis DREAM(ZS) method. Our adapted approach performs as well as the formal likelihood function for exploring posterior distributions of model parameters. The adapted KGE is superior to the formal likelihood function for calibrations combining multiple observations with different lengths, frequencies and units.
Silvana Bolaños Chavarría, Micha Werner, Juan Fernando Salazar, and Teresita Betancur Vargas
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 4323–4344, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-4323-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-4323-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Using total water storage (TWS) from GRACE satellites, we assess the reliability of global hydrological and land surface models over a medium-sized tropical basin with a well-developed gauging network. We find the models poorly represent TWS for the monthly series, but they improve in representing seasonality and long-term trends. We conclude that GRACE provides a valuable dataset to benchmark global simulations of TWS change, offering a useful tool to improve global models in tropical basins.
Jared D. Smith, Laurence Lin, Julianne D. Quinn, and Lawrence E. Band
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 2519–2539, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-2519-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-2519-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Watershed models are used to simulate streamflow and water quality, and to inform siting and sizing decisions for runoff and nutrient control projects. Data are limited for many watershed processes that are represented in such models, which requires selecting the most important processes to be calibrated. We show that this selection should be based on decision-relevant metrics at the spatial scales of interest for the control projects. This should enable more robust project designs.
Xia Wu, Lucy Marshall, and Ashish Sharma
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 1203–1221, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-1203-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-1203-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Decomposing parameter and input errors in model calibration is a considerable challenge. This study transfers the direct estimation of an input error series to their rank estimation and develops a new algorithm, i.e., Bayesian error analysis with reordering (BEAR). In the context of a total suspended solids simulation, two synthetic studies and a real study demonstrate that the BEAR method is effective for improving the input error estimation and water quality model calibration.
Keighobad Jafarzadegan, Peyman Abbaszadeh, and Hamid Moradkhani
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 4995–5011, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-4995-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-4995-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
In this study, daily observations are assimilated into a hydrodynamic model to update the performance of modeling and improve the flood inundation mapping skill. Results demonstrate that integrating data assimilation with a hydrodynamic model improves the performance of flood simulation and provides more reliable inundation maps. A flowchart provides the overall steps for applying this framework in practice and forecasting probabilistic flood maps before the onset of upcoming floods.
Hang Lyu, Chenxi Xia, Jinghan Zhang, and Bo Li
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 24, 6075–6090, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-6075-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-6075-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
Baseflow separation plays a critical role in science-based management of water resources. This study addressed key challenges hindering the application of the generally accepted conductivity mass balance (CMB). Monitoring data for over 200 stream sites of the Mississippi River basin were collected to answer the following questions. What are the characteristics of a watershed that determine the method suitability? What length of monitoring data is needed? How can the parameters be more accurate?
Aynom T. Teweldebrhan, Thomas V. Schuler, John F. Burkhart, and Morten Hjorth-Jensen
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 24, 4641–4658, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-4641-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-4641-2020, 2020
Christoph Schürz, Bano Mehdi, Jens Kiesel, Karsten Schulz, and Mathew Herrnegger
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 24, 4463–4489, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-4463-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-4463-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
The USLE is a commonly used model to estimate soil erosion by water. It quantifies soil loss as a product of six inputs representing rainfall erosivity, soil erodibility, slope length and steepness, plant cover, and support practices. Many methods exist to derive these inputs, which can, however, lead to substantial differences in the estimated soil loss. Here, we analyze the effect of different input representations on the estimated soil loss in a large-scale study in Kenya and Uganda.
Alicia Correa, Diego Ochoa-Tocachi, and Christian Birkel
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 23, 5059–5068, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-23-5059-2019, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-23-5059-2019, 2019
Short summary
Short summary
The applications and availability of large tracer data sets have vastly increased in recent years leading to research into the contributions of multiple sources to a mixture. We introduce a method based on Taylor series approximation to estimate the uncertainties of such sources' contributions. The method is illustrated with examples of hydrology (14 tracers) and a MATLAB code is provided for reproducibility. This method can be generalized to any number of tracers across a range of disciplines.
Hongmei Xu, Lüliu Liu, Yong Wang, Sheng Wang, Ying Hao, Jingjin Ma, and Tong Jiang
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 23, 4219–4231, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-23-4219-2019, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-23-4219-2019, 2019
Short summary
Short summary
1.5 and 2 °C have become targets in the discussion of climate change impacts. However, climate research is also challenged to provide more robust information on the impact of climate change at local and regional scales to assist the development of sound scientific adaptation and mitigation measures. This study assessed the impacts and differences of 1.5 and 2.0 °C global warming on basin-scale river runoff by examining four river basins covering a wide hydroclimatic setting in China.
Lorenz Ammann, Fabrizio Fenicia, and Peter Reichert
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 23, 2147–2172, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-23-2147-2019, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-23-2147-2019, 2019
Short summary
Short summary
The uncertainty of hydrological models can be substantial, and its quantification and realistic description are often difficult. We propose a new flexible probabilistic framework to describe and quantify this uncertainty. It is show that the correlation of the errors can be non-stationary, and that accounting for temporal changes in correlation can lead to strongly improved probabilistic predictions. This is a promising avenue for improving uncertainty estimation in hydrological modelling.
Weifei Yang, Changlai Xiao, and Xiujuan Liang
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 23, 1103–1112, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-23-1103-2019, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-23-1103-2019, 2019
Short summary
Short summary
This paper analyzed the sensitivity of the baseflow index to the parameters of the conductivity two-component hydrograph separation method. The results indicated that the baseflow index is more sensitive to the conductivity of baseflow and the separation method may be more suitable for the long time series in a small watershed. After considering the mutual offset of the measurement errors of conductivity and streamflow, the uncertainty in baseflow index was reduced by half.
Xudong Zhou, Jan Polcher, Tao Yang, Yukiko Hirabayashi, and Trung Nguyen-Quang
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 22, 6087–6108, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-6087-2018, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-6087-2018, 2018
Short summary
Short summary
Model bias is commonly seen in discharge simulation by hydrological or land surface models. This study tested an approach with the Budyko hypothesis to retrospect the estimated discharge bias to different bias sources including the atmospheric variables and model structure. Results indicate that the bias is most likely caused by the forcing variables, and the forcing bias should firstly be assessed and reduced in order to perform pertinent analysis of the regional water cycle.
Linh Hoang, Rajith Mukundan, Karen E. B. Moore, Emmet M. Owens, and Tammo S. Steenhuis
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 22, 5947–5965, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-5947-2018, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-5947-2018, 2018
Short summary
Short summary
The paper analyzes the effect of two input data (DEMs and the combination of soil and land use data) with different resolution and complexity on the uncertainty of model outputs (the predictions of streamflow and saturated areas) and parameter uncertainty using SWAT-HS. Results showed that DEM resolution has significant effect on the spatial pattern of saturated areas and using complex soil and land use data may not necessarily improve model performance or reduce model uncertainty.
Aynom T. Teweldebrhan, John F. Burkhart, and Thomas V. Schuler
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 22, 5021–5039, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-5021-2018, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-5021-2018, 2018
Léonard Santos, Guillaume Thirel, and Charles Perrin
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 22, 4583–4591, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-4583-2018, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-4583-2018, 2018
Short summary
Short summary
The Kling and Gupta efficiency (KGE) is a score used in hydrology to evaluate flow simulation compared to observations. In order to force the evaluation on the low flows, some authors used the log-transformed flow to calculate the KGE. In this technical note, we show that this transformation should be avoided because it produced numerical flaws that lead to difficulties in the score value interpretation.
Lei Chen, Shuang Li, Yucen Zhong, and Zhenyao Shen
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 22, 4145–4154, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-4145-2018, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-4145-2018, 2018
Short summary
Short summary
In this study, the cumulative distribution function approach (CDFA) and the Monte Carlo approach (MCA) were used to develop two new approaches for model evaluation within an uncertainty framework. These proposed methods could be extended to watershed models to provide a substitution for traditional model evaluations within an uncertainty framework.
Hui-Min Wang, Jie Chen, Alex J. Cannon, Chong-Yu Xu, and Hua Chen
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 22, 3739–3759, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-3739-2018, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-3739-2018, 2018
Short summary
Short summary
Facing a growing number of climate models, many selection methods were proposed to select subsets in the field of climate simulation, but the transferability of their performances to hydrological impacts remains doubtful. We investigate the transferability of climate simulation uncertainty to hydrological impacts using two selection methods, and conclude that envelope-based selection of about 10 climate simulations based on properly chosen climate variables is suggested for impact studies.
Andreas M. Jobst, Daniel G. Kingston, Nicolas J. Cullen, and Josef Schmid
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 22, 3125–3142, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-3125-2018, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-3125-2018, 2018
Lieke A. Melsen, Nans Addor, Naoki Mizukami, Andrew J. Newman, Paul J. J. F. Torfs, Martyn P. Clark, Remko Uijlenhoet, and Adriaan J. Teuling
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 22, 1775–1791, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-1775-2018, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-1775-2018, 2018
Short summary
Short summary
Long-term hydrological predictions are important for water management planning, but are also prone to uncertainty. This study investigates three sources of uncertainty for long-term hydrological predictions in the US: climate models, hydrological models, and hydrological model parameters. Mapping the results revealed spatial patterns in the three sources of uncertainty: different sources of uncertainty dominate in different regions.
Katrien Van Eerdenbrugh, Stijn Van Hoey, Gemma Coxon, Jim Freer, and Niko E. C. Verhoest
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 21, 5315–5337, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-5315-2017, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-5315-2017, 2017
Short summary
Short summary
Consistency in stage–discharge data is investigated using a methodology called Bidirectional Reach (BReach). Various measurement stations in the UK, New Zealand and Belgium are selected based on their historical ratings information and their characteristics related to data consistency. When applying a BReach analysis on them, the methodology provides results that appear consistent with the available knowledge and thus facilitates a reliable assessment of (in)consistency in stage–discharge data.
Hadush K. Meresa and Renata J. Romanowicz
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 21, 4245–4258, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-4245-2017, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-4245-2017, 2017
Short summary
Short summary
Evaluation of the uncertainty in projections of future hydrological extremes in the mountainous catchment was performed. The uncertainty of the estimate of 1-in-100-year return maximum flow based on the 1971–2100 time series exceeds 200 % of its median value with the largest influence of the climate model uncertainty, while the uncertainty of the 1-in-100-year return minimum flow is of the same order (i.e. exceeds 200 %) but it is mainly influenced by the hydrological model parameter uncertainty.
Omar Wani, Joost V. L. Beckers, Albrecht H. Weerts, and Dimitri P. Solomatine
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 21, 4021–4036, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-4021-2017, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-4021-2017, 2017
Short summary
Short summary
We generate uncertainty intervals for hydrologic model predictions using a simple instance-based learning scheme. Errors made by the model in some specific hydrometeorological conditions in the past are used to predict the probability distribution of its errors during forecasting. We test it for two different case studies in England. We find that this technique, even though conceptually simple and easy to implement, performs as well as some other sophisticated uncertainty estimation methods.
Gabriele Baroni, Matthias Zink, Rohini Kumar, Luis Samaniego, and Sabine Attinger
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 21, 2301–2320, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-2301-2017, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-2301-2017, 2017
Short summary
Short summary
Three methods are used to characterize the uncertainty in soil properties. The effect on simulated states and fluxes is quantified using a distributed hydrological model. Different impacts are identified as function of the perturbation method, of the model outputs and of the spatio-temporal resolution. The study underlines the importance of a proper characterization of the uncertainty in soil properties for a correct assessment of their role and further improvements in the model application.
Ji Li, Yangbo Chen, Huanyu Wang, Jianming Qin, Jie Li, and Sen Chiao
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 21, 1279–1294, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-1279-2017, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-1279-2017, 2017
Short summary
Short summary
Quantitative precipitation forecast produced by the WRF model has a similar pattern to that estimated by rain gauges in a southern China large watershed, hydrological model parameters should be optimized with QPF produced by WRF, and simulating floods by coupling the WRF QPF with a distributed hydrological model provides a good reference for large watershed flood warning and could benefit the flood management communities due to its longer lead time.
Johanna I. F. Slaets, Hans-Peter Piepho, Petra Schmitter, Thomas Hilger, and Georg Cadisch
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 21, 571–588, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-571-2017, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-571-2017, 2017
Short summary
Short summary
Determining measures of uncertainty on loads is not trivial, as a load is a product of concentration and discharge per time point, summed up over time. A bootstrap approach enables the calculation of confidence intervals on constituent loads. Ignoring the uncertainty on the discharge will typically underestimate the width of 95 % confidence intervals by around 10 %. Furthermore, confidence intervals are asymmetric, with the largest uncertainty on the upper limit.
David N. Dralle, Nathaniel J. Karst, Kyriakos Charalampous, Andrew Veenstra, and Sally E. Thompson
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 21, 65–81, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-65-2017, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-65-2017, 2017
Short summary
Short summary
The streamflow recession is the period following rainfall during which flow declines. This paper examines a common method of recession analysis and identifies sensitivity of the technique's results to necessary, yet subjective, methodological choices. The results have implications for hydrology, sediment and solute transport, and geomorphology, as well as for testing numerous hydrologic theories which predict the mathematical form of the recession.
Simon Paul Seibert, Uwe Ehret, and Erwin Zehe
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 20, 3745–3763, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-20-3745-2016, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-20-3745-2016, 2016
Short summary
Short summary
While the assessment of "vertical" (magnitude) errors of streamflow simulations is standard practice, "horizontal" (timing) errors are rarely considered. To assess their role, we propose a method to quantify both errors simultaneously which closely resembles visual hydrograph comparison. Our results reveal differences in time–magnitude error statistics for different flow conditions. The proposed method thus offers novel perspectives for model diagnostics and evaluation.
Paul Hublart, Denis Ruelland, Inaki García de Cortázar-Atauri, Simon Gascoin, Stef Lhermitte, and Antonio Ibacache
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 20, 3691–3717, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-20-3691-2016, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-20-3691-2016, 2016
Short summary
Short summary
Our paper explores the reliability of conceptual catchment models in the dry Andes. First, we show that explicitly accounting for irrigation water use improves streamflow predictions during dry years. Second, we show that sublimation losses can be easily incorporated into temperature-based melt models without increasing model complexity too much. Our work also highlights areas requiring additional research, including the need for a better conceptualization of runoff generation processes.
Stephen Oni, Martyn Futter, Jose Ledesma, Claudia Teutschbein, Jim Buttle, and Hjalmar Laudon
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 20, 2811–2825, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-20-2811-2016, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-20-2811-2016, 2016
Short summary
Short summary
This paper presents an important framework to improve hydrologic projections in cold regions. Hydrologic modelling/projections are often based on model calibration to long-term data. Here we used dry and wet years as a proxy to quantify uncertainty in projecting hydrologic extremes. We showed that projections based on long-term data could underestimate runoff by up to 35% in boreal regions. We believe the hydrologic modelling community will benefit from new insights derived from this study.
Juraj Parajka, Alfred Paul Blaschke, Günter Blöschl, Klaus Haslinger, Gerold Hepp, Gregor Laaha, Wolfgang Schöner, Helene Trautvetter, Alberto Viglione, and Matthias Zessner
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 20, 2085–2101, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-20-2085-2016, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-20-2085-2016, 2016
Short summary
Short summary
Streamflow estimation during low-flow conditions is important for estimation of environmental flows, effluent water quality, hydropower operations, etc. However, it is not clear how the uncertainties in assumptions used in the projections translate into uncertainty of estimated future low flows. The objective of the study is to explore the relative role of hydrologic model calibration and climate scenarios in the uncertainty of low-flow projections in Austria.
Susana Almeida, Nataliya Le Vine, Neil McIntyre, Thorsten Wagener, and Wouter Buytaert
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 20, 887–901, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-20-887-2016, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-20-887-2016, 2016
Short summary
Short summary
The absence of flow data to calibrate hydrologic models may reduce the ability of such models to reliably inform water resources management. To address this limitation, it is common to condition hydrological model parameters on regionalized signatures. In this study, we justify the inclusion of larger sets of signatures in the regionalization procedure if their error correlations are formally accounted for and thus enable a more complete use of all available information.
H. Xu and Y. Luo
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 19, 4609–4618, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-19-4609-2015, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-19-4609-2015, 2015
Short summary
Short summary
This study quantified the climate impact on river discharge in the River Huangfuchuan in semi-arid northern China and the River Xiangxi in humid southern China. Climate projections showed trends toward warmer and wetter conditions, particularly for the River Huangfuchuan. The main projected hydrologic impact was a more pronounced increase in annual discharge in both catchments. Peak flows are projected to appear earlier than usual in the River Huangfuchuan and later than usual in River Xiangxi.
I. K. Westerberg and H. K. McMillan
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 19, 3951–3968, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-19-3951-2015, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-19-3951-2015, 2015
Short summary
Short summary
This study investigated the effect of uncertainties in data and calculation methods on hydrological signatures. We present a widely applicable method to evaluate signature uncertainty and show results for two example catchments. The uncertainties were often large (i.e. typical intervals of ±10–40% relative uncertainty) and highly variable between signatures. It is therefore important to consider uncertainty when signatures are used for hydrological and ecohydrological analyses and modelling.
T. O. Sonnenborg, D. Seifert, and J. C. Refsgaard
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 19, 3891–3901, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-19-3891-2015, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-19-3891-2015, 2015
Short summary
Short summary
The impacts of climate model uncertainty and geological model uncertainty on hydraulic head, stream flow, travel time and capture zones are evaluated. Six versions of a physically based and distributed hydrological model, each containing a unique interpretation of the geological structure of the model area, are forced by 11 climate model projections. Geology is the dominating uncertainty source for travel time and capture zones, while climate dominates for hydraulic heads and steam flow.
N. Dogulu, P. López López, D. P. Solomatine, A. H. Weerts, and D. L. Shrestha
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 19, 3181–3201, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-19-3181-2015, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-19-3181-2015, 2015
F. Bourgin, V. Andréassian, C. Perrin, and L. Oudin
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 19, 2535–2546, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-19-2535-2015, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-19-2535-2015, 2015
T. Berezowski, J. Nossent, J. Chormański, and O. Batelaan
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 19, 1887–1904, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-19-1887-2015, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-19-1887-2015, 2015
F. Silvestro, S. Gabellani, R. Rudari, F. Delogu, P. Laiolo, and G. Boni
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 19, 1727–1751, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-19-1727-2015, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-19-1727-2015, 2015
M. C. Demirel, M. J. Booij, and A. Y. Hoekstra
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 19, 275–291, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-19-275-2015, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-19-275-2015, 2015
Short summary
Short summary
This paper investigates the skill of 90-day low-flow forecasts using three models. From the results, it appears that all models are prone to over-predict runoff during low-flow periods using ensemble seasonal meteorological forcing. The largest range for 90-day low-flow forecasts is found for the GR4J model. Overall, the uncertainty from ensemble P forecasts has a larger effect on seasonal low-flow forecasts than the uncertainty from ensemble PET forecasts and initial model conditions.
J. Crossman, M. N. Futter, P. G. Whitehead, E. Stainsby, H. M. Baulch, L. Jin, S. K. Oni, R. L. Wilby, and P. J. Dillon
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 18, 5125–5148, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-18-5125-2014, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-18-5125-2014, 2014
Short summary
Short summary
We projected potential hydrochemical responses in four neighbouring catchments to a range of future climates. The highly variable responses in streamflow and total phosphorus (TP) were governed by geology and flow pathways, where larger catchment responses were proportional to greater soil clay content. This suggests clay content might be used as an indicator of catchment sensitivity to climate change, and highlights the need for catchment-specific management plans.
M. Honti, A. Scheidegger, and C. Stamm
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 18, 3301–3317, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-18-3301-2014, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-18-3301-2014, 2014
I. K. Westerberg, L. Gong, K. J. Beven, J. Seibert, A. Semedo, C.-Y. Xu, and S. Halldin
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 18, 2993–3013, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-18-2993-2014, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-18-2993-2014, 2014
G. Seiller and F. Anctil
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 18, 2033–2047, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-18-2033-2014, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-18-2033-2014, 2014
J. D. Herman, J. B. Kollat, P. M. Reed, and T. Wagener
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 17, 5109–5125, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-17-5109-2013, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-17-5109-2013, 2013
M. Sadegh and J. A. Vrugt
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 17, 4831–4850, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-17-4831-2013, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-17-4831-2013, 2013
Cited articles
Ahl, R. S., Woods, S. W., and Zuuring, H. R.: Hydrologic calibration and validation of swat in a snow-dominated rocky mountain watershed, Montana, USA, J. Am. Water Resour. As., 44, 1411–1430, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2008.00233.x, 2008.
Ajami, N. K., Gupta, H., Wagener, T., and Sorooshian, S.: Calibration of a semi-distributed hydrological model for streamflow estimation along a river system, J. Hydrol., 298, 112–135, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2004.03.033, 2004.
Band, L., Peterson, D., Running, S., Coughlan, J., Lammers, R., Dungan, J., and Nemani, R.: Forest ecosystem processes at the watershed scale: Basis for distributed simulation, Ecol. Model., 56, 171–196, https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3800(91)90199-B, 1991.
Band, L., Patterson, J., Nemani, R., and Running, S.: Forest ecosystem processes at the watershed scale: Incorporating hillslope hydrology Agric, For. Meteor., 63, 93–126, https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-1923(93)90024-C, 1993.
Bennett, N. D., Croke, B. F., Guariso, G., Guillaume, J. H., Hamilton, S. H., Jakeman, A. J., Marsili-Libelli, S., Newham, L. T., Norton, J. P., Perrin, C., and Pierce, S. A.: Characterising performance of environmental models, Environ. Modell. Softw., 40, 1–20, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2012.09.011, 2013.
Beven, K. J.: Changing ideas in hydrology: the case of physically based models, J. Hydrol., 105, 157–172, https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1694(89)90101-7, 1989.
Beven, K. J.: Prophecy, reality and uncertainty in distributed hydrological modelling, Adv. Water Resour., 16, 41–51, https://doi.org/10.1016/0309-1708(93)90028-E, 1993.
Beven, K.: How far can we go in distributed hydrological modelling?, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 5, 1–12, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-5-1-2001, 2001.
Beven, K. J.: Towards an alternative blueprint for a physically based digitally simulated hydrologic response modelling system, Hydrol. Process., 16, 189–206, https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.343, 2002.
Beven, K. J.: A manifesto for the equifinality thesis, J. Hydrol., 320, 18–36, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2005.07.007, 2006.
Beven, K. J. and Binley, A. M.: The future of distributed models: model calibration and uncertainty prediction, Hydrol. Process., 6, 279–298, https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.3360060305, 1992.
Beven, K. J. and Binley, A. M.: GLUE: 20 years on, Hydrol. Process., 28, 5897–5918, https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.10082, 2014.
Beven, K. J. and Kirkby, M. J.: Towards a simple physically based variable contributing model of catchment hydrology, Working Paper 154, School of Geography, University of Leeds, 1976.
Beven, K. J. and Kirkby, M. J.: A physically based, variable contributing area model of basin hydrology, Hydrological Sciences Bulletin, 24, 43–69, https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667909491834, 1979.
Birkel, C., Soulsby, C., and Tetzlaff, D.: Developing a consistent process-based conceptualization of catchment functioning using measurements of internal state variables, Water Resour. Res., 50, 3481–3501, https://doi.org/10.1002/2013WR014925, 2014.
Bixio, A. C., Gambolati, G., Paniconi, C., Putti, M., Shestopalov, V. M., Bublias, V. N., Bohuslavsky, A. S., Kastelteseva, N. B., and Rudenko, Y. F.: Modelling groundwater–surface water interactions including effects of morphogenetic depressions in the Chernobyl exclusion zone, Environ. Geol., 42, 162–177, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00254-001-0486-7, 2002.
Bloschl, G., Sivapalan, M., Wagener, T., Viglione, A., and Savenije, H.: Runoff prediction in ungauged basins: Synthesis across processes, places, and scales, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2013.
Camporese, M., Paniconi, C., Putti, M., and Orlandini, S.: Surface-subsurface flow modelling with path-based runoff routing, boundary condition-based coupling, and assimilation of multisource observation data, Water Resour. Res., 46, W02512, https://doi.org/10.1029/2008WR007536, 2010.
Chen, Z., Hartmann, A., and Goldscheider, N.: A new approach to evaluate spatiotemporal dynamics of controlling parameters in distributed environmental models, Environ. Modell. Softw., 87, 1–16, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2016.10.005, 2017.
Church, M. R., Bishop, G. D., and Cassell, D. L.: Maps of regional evapotranspiration and runoff/precipitation ratios in the Northeast United States, J. Hydrol., 168, 283–298, https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1694(94)02640-W, 1995.
Clark, M. P., Slater, A. G., Rupp, D. E., Woods, R. A., Vrugt, J. A., Gupta, H. V., Wagener, T., and Hay, L. E.: Framework for Understanding Structural Errors (FUSE): A modular framework to diagnose differences between hydrological models, Water Resour. Res., 44, W00B02, https://doi.org/10.1029/2007WR006735, 2008.
Clark, M. P., Kavetski, D., and Fenicia, F.: Pursuing the method of multiple working hypotheses for hydrological modelling, Water Resour. Res., 47, W09301, https://doi.org/10.1029/2010WR009827, 2011.
Crawford, N. H. and Linsley, R. K.: Digital Simulation in Hydrology: Stanford Watershed Model IV, Technical Report No. 39, Department of Civil Engineering, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, 1966.
Cuo, L., Giambelluca, T. W., Ziegler, A. D., and Nullet, M. A.: Use of the distributed hydrology soil vegetation model to study road effects on hydrological processes in Pang Khum Experimental Watershed, northern Thailand, Forest Ecol. Manag., 224, 81–94, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2005.12.009, 2006.
Cuo, L., Lettenmaier, D. P., Alberti, M., and Richey, J. E.: Effects of a century of land cover and climate change on the hydrology of Puget Sound basin, Hydrol. Process., 23, 907–933, https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.7228, 2009.
Cuo, L., Giambelluca, T. W., and Ziegler, A. D.: Lumped parameter sensitivity analysis of a distributed hydrological model within tropical and temperate catchments, Hydrol. Process., 25, 2405–2421, https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.8017, 2011.
Das, T., Bardossy, A., Zehe, E., and He, Y.: Comparison of conceptual model performance using different representations of spatial variability, J. Hydrol., 356, 106–118, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2008.04.008, 2008.
Dingman, L.: Physical Hydrology, Waveland Press, Long Grove, IL, 2001.
Du, E., Link, T. E., Gravelle, J. A., and Hubbart, J. A.: Validation and sensitivity test of the distributed hydrology soil-vegetation model (DHSVM) in a forested mountain watershed, Hydrol. Process., 28, 6196–6210, https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.10110, 2014.
Euser, T., Hrachowitz, M., Winsemius, H. C., and Savenije, H. H.: The effect of forcing and landscape distribution on performance and consistency of model structures, Hydrol. Process., 29, 3727–3743, https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.10445, 2015.
Fang, Z., Bogena, H., Kollet, S., and Vereecken, H.: Scale dependent parameterization of soil hydraulic conductivity in 3D simulation of hydrological processes in a forested headwater catchment, J. Hydrol., 536, 365–375, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2016.03.020, 2016.
Farnes, P. E., Shearer, R. C., McCaughey, W. W., and Hansen, K. J.: Comparisons of Hydrology, Geology, and Physical Characteristics Between Tenderfoot Creek Experimental Forest (East Side) Montana, and Coram Experimental Forest (West Side) Montana, Final Report RJVA-INT-92734, USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, Bozeman, Mont., 19 pp., 1995.
Fatichi, S., Vivoni, E. R., Ogden, F. L., Ivanov, V. Y., Mirus, B., Gochis, D., Downer, C. W., Camporese, M., Davison, J. H., Ebel, B., and Jones, N.: An overview of current applications, challenges, and future trends in distributed process-based models in hydrology, J. Hydrol., 537, 45–60, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2016.03.026, 2016.
Fenicia, F., Savenije, H. H., Matgen, P., and Pfister, L.: Understanding catchment behaviour through stepwise model concept improvement, Water Resour. Res., 44, W01402, https://doi.org/10.1029/2006WR005563, 2008.
Fenicia, F., Kavetski, D., and Savenije, H. H. G.: Elements of a flexible approach for conceptual hydrological modelling: 1. Motivation and theoretical development, Water Resour. Res., 47, W11510, https://doi.org/10.1029/2010WR010174, 2011.
Fenicia, F., Kavetski, D., Savenije, H. H. G., and Pfister, L.: From spatially variable streamflow to distributed hydrological models: Analysis of key modelling decisions, Water Resour. Res., 52, 954–989, https://doi.org/10.1002/2015WR017398, 2016.
Flugel, W.-A.: Delineating hydrological response units by geographical information system analyses for regional hydrological modelling using PRMS/MMS in the drainage basin of the River Brol, Germany, Hydrol. Process., 9, 423–436, https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.3360090313, 1995.
Franks, S. W., Gineste, P., Beven, K. J., and Merot, P.: On constraining the predictions of a distributed model: The incorporation of fuzzy estimates of saturated areas into the calibration process, Water Resour. Res., 34, 787–797, https://doi.org/10.1029/97WR03041, 1998.
Freeze, R. A. and Harlan, R. L.: Blueprint for a physically-based, digitally-simulated hydrologic response model, J. Hydrol., 9, 237–258, https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1694(69)90020-1, 1969.
Gharari, S., Hrachowitz, M., Fenicia, F., Gao, H., and Savenije, H. H. G.: Using expert knowledge to increase realism in environmental system models can dramatically reduce the need for calibration, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 18, 4839–4859, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-18-4839-2014, 2014.
Ghasemizade, M., Baroni, G., Abbaspour, K., and Schirmer, M.: Combined analysis of time-varying sensitivity and identifiability indices to diagnose the response of a complex environmental model, Environ. Modell. Softw., 88, 22–34, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2016.10.011, 2017.
Glasgow, L. S., Smith, H. Y., Keane, R. E., Wright, D. K., and Sutherland, E. K.: Tenderfoot Creek Experimental Forest 15 minute streamflow data, 2nd Edition, Fort Collins, CO, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Data publication updated 27 October 2015, https://doi.org/10.2737/RDS-2010-0003.2, 2013.
Graeff, T., Zehe, E., Blume, T., Francke, T., and Schröder, B.: Predicting event response in a nested catchment with generalized linear models and a distributed watershed model, Hydrol. Process., 26, 3749–3769, https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.8463, 2012.
Grayson, R. B., Moore, I. D., and McMahon, T. A.: Physically based hydrologic modelling: 2. Is the concept realistic?, Water Resour. Res., 28, 2659–2666, https://doi.org/10.1029/92WR01259, 1992.
Grayson, R. B., Blöschl, G., Western, A. W., and McMahon, T. A.: Advances in the use of observed spatial patterns of catchment hydrological response, Adv. Water Resour., 25, 1313–1334, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0309-1708(02)00060-X, 2002.
Gupta, H. V., Sorooshian, S., and Yapo, P. O.: Towards improved calibration of hydrologic models: multiple and noncommensurable measures of information, Water Resour. Res., 34, 751–763, https://doi.org/10.1029/97WR03495, 1998.
Gupta, H. V., Wagener, T., and Liu, Y.: Reconciling theory with observations: elements of a diagnostic approach to model evaluation, Hydrol. Process., 22, 3802–3813, https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.6989, 2008.
Guse, B., Pfannerstill, M., Strauch, M., Reusser, D. E., Lüdtke, S., Volk, M., Gupta, H., and Fohrer, N.: On characterizing the temporal dominance patterns of model parameters and processes, Hydrol. Process., 30, 2255–2270, https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.10764, 2016.
Harmel, R. D., Smith, P. K., Migliaccio, K. L., Chaubey, I., Douglas-Mankin, K., Benham, B., Shukla, S., Muñoz-Carpena, R., and Robson, B. J.: Evaluating, interpreting, and communicating performance of hydrologic/water quality models considering intended use: a review and recommendations, Environ. Modell. Softw., 57, 40–51, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2014.02.013, 2014.
Herman, J. D., Kollat, J. B., Reed, P. M., and Wagener, T.: From maps to movies: high-resolution time-varying sensitivity analysis for spatially distributed watershed models, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 17, 5109–5125, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-17-5109-2013, 2013.
Hill, M. C., Kavetski, D., Clark, M., Ye, M., Arabi, M., Lu, D., Foglia, L., and Mehl, S.: Practical Use of Computationally Frugal Model Analysis Methods, Groundwater, 54, 159–170, https://doi.org/10.1111/gwat.12330, 2016.
Hornberger, G. M. and Spear, R. C.: Eutrophication in Peel Inlet – I. The problem-defining behaviour and a mathematical model for the phosphorus scenario, Water Res., 14, 29–42, https://doi.org/10.1016/0043-1354(80)90039-1, 1980.
Hornberger, G. M. and Spear, R. C.: An approach to the preliminary analysis of environmental systems, J. Environ. Manage, 12, 7–18, 1981.
Hrachowitz, M., Fovet, O., Ruiz, L., Euser, T., Gharari, S., Nijzink, R., Freer, J., Savenije, H. H. G., and Gascuel-Odoux, C.: Process consistency in models: The importance of system signatures, expert knowledge, and process complexity, Water Resour. Res., 50, 7445–7469, https://doi.org/10.1002/2014WR015484, 2014.
Hrachowitz, M. and Clark, M.: HESS Opinions: The complementary merits of top-down and bottom-up modelling philosophies in hydrology, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2017-36, in review, 2017.
Hundecha, Y. and Bardossy, A.: Modeling effect of land use changes on runoff generation of a river basin through parameter regionalization of a watershed model, J. Hydrol., 292, 281–295, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2004.01.002, 2004.
Hundecha, Y., Ouarda, T. B. M. J., and Bardossy, A.: Regional estimation of parameters of a rainfall-runoff model at ungauged watersheds using the spatial structures of the parameters within a canonical physiographic-climatic space, Water Resour. Res., 44, W01427, https://doi.org/10.1029/2006WR005439, 2008.
Jefferson, J. L., Gilbert, J. M., Constantine, P. G., and Maxwell, R. M.: Active subspaces for sensitivity analysis and dimension reduction of an integrated hydrologic model, Comput. Geosci., 90, 78–89, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2015.11.002, 2015.
Jencso, K. J., McGlynn, B. L., Gooseff, M. N., Wondzell, S. M., Bencala, K. E., and Marshall, L. A.: Hydrologic connectivity between landscapes and streams: Transferring reach and plot scale understanding to the catchment scale, Water Resour. Res., 45, W04428, https://doi.org/10.1029/2008WR007225, 2009.
Jencso, K. G. and McGlynn, B. L.: Hierarchical controls on runoff generation: Topographically driven hydrologic connectivity, geology, and vegetation, Water Resour. Res., 47, W11527, https://doi.org/10.1029/2011WR010666, 2011.
Jost, G., Moore, R. D., Weiler, M., Gluns, D. R., and Alila, Y.: Use of distributed snow measurements to test and improve a snowmelt model for predicting the effect of forest clear-cutting, J. Hydrol., 376, 94–106, 2009.
Kampf, S. K. and Burges, S. J.: A framework for classifying and comparing distributed hillslope and catchment hydrologic models, Water Resour. Res., 43, W05423, https://doi.org/10.1029/2006WR005370, 2007.
Keesman, K. J.: Set-theoretic parameter estimation using random scanning and principal component analysis, Math. Comput. Simul., 32, 535–543, https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-4754(90)90009-8, 1990.
Kelleher, C., Wagener, T., and McGlynn, B.: Model-based analysis of the influence of catchment properties on hydrologic partitioning across five mountain headwater subcatchments, Water Resour. Res., 51, 4109–4136, https://doi.org/10.1002/2014WR016147, 2015.
Kling, H. and Gupta, H.: On the development of regionalization relationships for lumped watershed models: The impact of ignoring sub-basin scale variability, J. Hydrol., 373, 337–351, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.04.031, 2009.
Koch, J., Cornelissen, T., Fang, Z., Bogena, H., Diekkrüger, B., Kollet, S., and Stisen, S.: Inter-comparison of three distributed hydrological models with respect to seasonal variability of soil moisture patterns at a small forested catchment, J. Hydrol., 533, 234–249, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2015.12.002, 2016.
Koren, V., Moreda, F., and Smith, M.: Use of soil moisture observations to improve parameter consistency in watershed calibration, Phys. Chem. Earth, 33, 1068–1080, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pce.2008.01.003, 2008.
Krug, W. R., Gebert, W. A., Graczyk, D. J., Stevens, D. L., Rochelle, B. P., and Church, M. R.: Map of mean annual runoff for the northeastern, southeastern, and mid-Atlantic United States Water Years 1951–80, US Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations Report 88-4094, Denver, CO, 1990.
Kumar, R., Livneh, B., and Samaniego, L.: Toward computationally efficient large-scale hydrologic predictions with a multiscale regionalization scheme, Water Resour. Res., 49, 5700–5714, https://doi.org/10.1002/wrcr.20431, 2013.
Kuraś, P. K., Alila, Y., Weiler, M., Spittlehouse, D., and Winkler, R.: Internal catchment process simulation in a snow-dominated basin: Performance evaluation with spatiotemporally variable runoff generation and groundwater dynamics, Hydrol. Process., 25, 3187–3203, https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.8037, 2011.
Lamb, R., Beven, K., and Myrabø, S.: Use of spatially distributed water table observations to constrain uncertainty in a rainfall–runoff model, Adv. Water Resour., 22, 305–317, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0309-1708(98)00020-7, 1998.
Leavesley, G. H., Lichty, R. W., Troutman, B. M., and Saindon, L. G.: Precipitation-Runoff Modeling System: User's manual, Water Resources Investigations Report 83-4238, United States Department of the Interior, Denver, Colorado, USA, 1983.
McGlynn, B. L., Bloschl, G., Borga, M., Borman, H., Hurkmans, R., Nandagiri, L., Uijlenhoet, R., and Wagener, T.: A data acquisition framework for runoff prediction in ungauged basins, in: Runoff Prediction in Ungauged Basins: Synthesis across Processes, Places and Scales, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2013.
Melsen, L., Teuling, A., Torfs, P., Zappa, M., Mizukami, N., Clark, M., and Uijlenhoet, R.: Representation of spatial and temporal variability in large-domain hydrological models: case study for a mesoscale pre-Alpine basin, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 20, 2207–2226, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-20-2207-2016, 2016.
Milly, P. C. D: Climate, soil water storage, and the average water balance, Water Resour. Res., 30, 2143–2156, https://doi.org/10.1029/94WR00586, 1994.
Mincemoyer, S. A. and Birdsall, J. L.: Vascular flora of the Tenderfoot Creek Experimental Forest, Little Belt Mountains, Montana, Madrono, 53, 211–222, https://doi.org/10.3120/0024-9637(2006)53[211:VFOTTC]2.0.CO;2, 2006.
Mitchell, S. R., Emanuel, R., and McGlynn, B. L.: Land–atmosphere carbon and water flux relationships to vapor pressure deficit, soil moisture, and stream flow, Agric. For. Meteorol., 208, 108–117, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2015.04.003, 2015.
Moreau, P., Viaud, V., Parnaudeau, V., Salmon-Monviola, J., and Durand, P.: An approach for global sensitivity analysis of a complex environmental model to spatial inputs and parameters: A case study of an agro-hydrological model, Environ. Modell. Softw., 47, 74–87, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2013.04.006, 2013.
Moriasi, D. N., Arnold, J. G., Van Liew, M. W., Bingner, R. L., Harmel, R. D., and Veith, T. L.: Model evaluation guidelines for systematic quantification of accuracy in watershed simulations, T. ASABE, 50, 885–900, https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.23153, 2007.
Nash, J. E. and Sutcliffe, J. V.: River flow forecasting through conceptual models, Part I – A discussion of principles, J. Hydrol., 10, 282–290, https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1694(70)90255-6, 1970.
National Resources Conservation Service: Stringer Creek SNOTEL Site, United States Department of Agriculture, available at: https://wcc.sc.egov.usda.gov/nwcc/site?sitenum=1009&state=mt, 2017a.
National Resources Conservation Service: Onion Park SNOTEL Site, United States Department of Agriculture, available at: https://wcc.sc.egov.usda.gov/nwcc/site?sitenum=1008&state=mt, 2017b.
Nijzink, R. C., Samaniego, L., Mai, J., Kumar, R., Thober, S., Zink, M., Schäfer, D., Savenije, H. H. G., and Hrachowitz, M.: The importance of topography-controlled sub-grid process heterogeneity and semi-quantitative prior constraints in distributed hydrological models, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 20, 1151–1176, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-20-1151-2016, 2016.
Nippgen, F., McGlynn, B. L., and Emanuel, R. E.: The spatial and temporal evolution of contributing areas, Water Resour. Res., 51, 4550–4573, https://doi.org/10.1002/2014WR016719, 2015.
O'Loughlin, E. M.: Saturation regions in catchments and their relations to soil and topographic properties, J. Hydrol., 83, 307–335, https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1694(81)90003-2, 1981.
OpenTopography: Tender Foot, MT: Hydrological Processes on Hill Slopes, available at: http://opentopo.sdsc.edu/lidarDataset?opentopoID=OTLAS.102012.26912.4, 2017.
Paniconi, C. and Putti, M.: Physically based modelling in catchment hydrology at 50: Survey and outlook, Water Resour. Res., 51, 7090–7129, https://doi.org/10.1002/2015WR017780, 2015.
Pfannerstill, M., Guse, B., and Fohrer, N.: Smart low flow signature metrics for an improved overall performance evaluation of hydrological models, J. Hydrol., 510, 447–458, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2013.12.044, 2014.
Pokhrel, P., Gupta, H. V., and Wagener, T.: A spatial regularization approach to parameter estimation for a distributed watershed model, Water Resour. Res., 44, W12419, https://doi.org/10.1029/2007WR006615, 2008.
Ponce, V. M. and Shetty, A. V.: A conceptual model of catchment water balance. 1. Formulation and calibration, J. Hydrol., 173, 27–40, 1995a.
Ponce, V. M. and Shetty, A. V.: A conceptual model of catchment water balance. 2. Application to runoff and baseflow modelling, J. Hydrol., 173, 41–50, 1995b.
Qu, Y.: An integrated hydrologic model for multi-process simulation using semi-discrete finite volume approach, PhD thesis, The Pennsylvania State University, 136 pp., 2004.
Qu, Y. and Duffy, C. J.: A semidiscrete finite volume formulation for multiprocess catchment simulation, Water Resour. Res., 43, W08419, https://doi.org/10.1029/2006WR005752, 2007.
Rakovec, O., Hill, M. C., Clark, M. P., Weerts, A. H., Teuling, A. J., and Uijlenhoet, R.: Distributed evaluation of local sensitivity analysis (DELSA), with application to hydrologic models, Water Resour. Res., 50, 409–426, https://doi.org/10.1002/2013WR014063, 2014.
Rakovec, O., Kumar, R., Attinger, S., and Samaniego, L.: Improving the realism of hydrologic model functioning through multivariate parameter estimation, Water Resour. Res., 52, 7779–7792, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016WR019430, 2016.
Refsgaard, J. C.: Parameterisation, calibration and validation of distributed hydrological models, J. Hydrol., 198, 69–79, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(96)03329-X, 1997.
Refsgaard, J. C. and Storm, B.: MIKE SHE, in: Computer Models of Watershed Hydrology, edited by: Singh, V. P., Water Resources Publications, Colorado, USA, 809–846, 1995.
Reynolds, M.: Geology of Tenderfoot Creek Experimental Forest, Little Belt Mountains, Meagher County, Montana, in: Hydrologic and Geologic Characteristics of Tenderfoot Creek Experimental Forest, Montana, Final Rep. RJVA-INT-92734, edited by: Farnes, P., 21–32, Intermt. Res. Stn., For. Serv., US Dep. of Agric., Bozeman, Mont, 1995.
Safeeq, M. and Fares, A.: Hydrologic response of a Hawaiian watershed to future climate change scenarios, Hydrol. Process., 26, 2745–2764, https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.8328, 2012.
Saltelli, A., Ratto, M., Andres, T., Campolongo, F., Cariboni, J., Gatelli, D., Saisana, M., and Tarantola, S.: Global Sensitivity Analysis: The Primer, John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, NJ, 2008.
Samaniego, L., Kumar, R., and Attinger, S.: Multiscale parameter regionalization of a grid-based hydrologic model at the mesoscale, Water Resour. Res., 46, W05523, https://doi.org/10.1029/2008WR007327, 2010.
Sankarasubramanian, A. and M. Vogel, R. M.: Hydroclimatology of the continental United States, Geophys. Res. Lett., 30, 1363, https://doi.org/10.1029/2002GL015937, 2003.
Saxton, K. E. and Rawls, W. J.: Soil Water Characteristic Estimates by Texture and Organic Matter for Hydrologic Solutions, Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 70, 1569–1578, https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2005.0117, 2006.
Seibert, J. and McDonnell, J. J.: On the dialog between experimentalist and modeller in catchment hydrology: Use of soft data for multicriteria model calibration, Water Resour. Res., 38, 1241, https://doi.org/10.1029/2001WR000978, 2002.
Shafii, M. H. and Tolson, B. A.: Optimizing hydrological consistency by incorporating hydrological signatures into model calibration objectives, Water Resour. Res., 51, 3796–3814, https://doi.org/10.1002/2014WR016520, 2015.
Shields, C. and Tague, C.: Assessing the Role of Parameter and Input Uncertainty in Ecohydrologic Modelling: Implications for a Semi-arid and Urbanizing Coastal California Catchment, Ecosystems, 15, 775–791, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-012-9545-z, 2015.
Silvestro, F., Gabellani, S., Rudari, R., Delogu, F., Laiolo, P., and Boni, G.: Uncertainty reduction and parameter estimation of a distributed hydrological model with ground and remote-sensing data, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 19, 1727–1751, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-19-1727-2015, 2015.
Singh, V. P. and Woolhiser, D. A.: Mathematical modelling of watershed hydrology, J. Hydrol. Eng., 7, 270–292, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0699(2002)7:4(270), 2002.
Smith, T., Marshall, L., McGlynn, B., and Jencso, K.: Using field data to inform and evaluate a new model of catchment hydrologic connectivity, Water Resour. Res., 49, 6834–6846, https://doi.org/10.1002/wrcr.20546, 2013.
Smith, T., Hayes, K., Marshall, L., McGlynn, B., and Jencso, K.: Diagnostic calibration and cross-catchment transferability of a simple process-consistent hydrologic model, Hydrol. Process., 30, 5027–5038, https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.10955, 2016.
Spear, R. C. and Hornberger, G. M.: Eutrophication in Peel Inlet – II. Identification of critical uncertainties via generalized sensitivity analysis, Water Res., 14, 43–49, https://doi.org/10.1016/0043-1354(80)90040-8, 1980.
Surfleet, C. G., Skaugset, A. E., and McDonnell, J. J.: Uncertainty assessment of forest road modelling with the Distributed Hydrology Soil Vegetation Model (DHSVM), Can. J. For. Res., 40, 1397–1409, https://doi.org/10.1139/X10-079, 2010.
Tague, C. L., Choate, J. S., and Grant, G.: Parameterizing sub-surface drainage with geology to improve modeling streamflow responses to climate in data limited environments, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 17, 341–354, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-17-341-2013, 2013.
Tang, Y., Reed, P., Wagener, T., and van Werkhoven, K.: Comparing sensitivity analysis methods to advance lumped watershed model identification and evaluation, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 11, 793–817, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-11-793-2007, 2007.
Thyer, M., Beckers, J., Spittlehouse, D., Alila, Y., and Winkler, R.: Diagnosing a distributed hydrologic model for two high-elevation forested catchments based on detailed stand- and basin-scale data, Water Resour. Res., 40, 1029–1049, https://doi.org/10.1029/2003WR002414, 2004.
van Straten, G. and Keesrnan, K. J.: Uncertainty propagation and speculation in projective forecasts of environmental change: A lakeeutrophication example, J. Forecasting, 10, 163–190, https://doi.org/10.1002/for.3980100110, 1991.
van Werkhoven, K., Wagener, T., Reed, P., and Tang, Y.: Characterization of watershed model behaviour across a hydroclimatic gradient, Water Resour. Res., 44, W01429, https://doi.org/10.1029/2007WR006271, 2008.
Wagener, T., Boyle, D. P., Lees, M. J., Wheater, H. S., Gupta, H. V., and Sorooshian, S.: A framework for development and application of hydrological models, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 5, 13–26, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-5-13-2001, 2001.
Wagener, T. and Gupta, H. V.: Model identification for hydrological forecasting under uncertainty, Stoch. Env. Res. Risk A., 19, 378–387, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-005-0006-5, 2005.
Wagener, T., Sivapalan, M., Troch, P., and Woods, R.: Catchment classification and hydrologic similarity, Geography Compass, 1, 901–931, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-8198.2007.00039.x, 2007.
Wagener, T., van Werkhoven, K., Reed, P., and Tang, Y.: Multiobjective sensitivity analysis to understand the information content in streamflow observations for distributed watershed modeling, Water Resour. Res., 45, W02501, https://doi.org/10.1029/2008WR007347, 2009.
Wealands, S. R., Grayson, R. B., and Walker, J. P.: Quantitative comparison of spatial fields for hydrological model assessment – some promising approaches, Adv. Water Resour., 28, 15–32, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2004.10.001, 2005.
Whitaker, A., Alila, Y., Beckers, J., and Toews, D.: Application of the distributed hydrology soil vegetation model to Redfish Creek, British Columbia: model evaluation using internal catchment data, Hydrol. Process., 17, 199–224, https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.1119, 2003.
Wigmosta, M. S., Vail, L., and Lettenmaier, D. P.: A distributed hydrology-vegetation model for complex terrain, Water Resour. Res., 30, 1665–1679, https://doi.org/10.1029/94WR00436, 1994.
Wigmosta, M. S., Nijssen, B., Storck, P., and Lettenmaier, D. P.: The Distributed Hydrology Soil Vegetation Model, in: Mathematical Models of Small Watershed Hydrology and Applications, edited by: Singh, V. P. and Frevert, D. K., Water Resource Publications, Littleton, CO, 2002.
Yadav, M., Wagener, T. W., and Gupta, H.: Regionalization of constraints on expected watershed response behaviour for improved predictions in ungauged basins, Adv. Water Resour., 30, 1756–1774, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2007.01.005, 2007.
Yapo, P. O., Gupta, H. V., and Sorooshian, S.: Multi-objective global optimization for hydrologic models, J. Hydrol., 204, 83–97, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(97)00107-8, 1998.
Yilmaz, K. K., Gupta, H. V., and Wagener, T.: A process-based diagnostic approach to model evaluation: Application to the NWS distributed hydrologic model, Water Resour. Res., 44, W09417, https://doi.org/10.1029/2007WR006716, 2008.
Zehe, E., Ehret, U., Pfister, L., Blume, T., Schröder, B., Westhoff, M., Jackisch, C., Schymanski, S. J., Weiler, M., Schulz, K., Allroggen, N., Tronicke, J., van Schaik, L., Dietrich, P., Scherer, U., Eccard, J., Wulfmeyer, V., and Kleidon, A.: HESS Opinions: From response units to functional units: a thermodynamic reinterpretation of the HRU concept to link spatial organization and functioning of intermediate scale catchments, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 18, 4635–4655, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-18-4635-2014, 2014.
Zhang, C., Chu, J., and Fu, G.: Sobol's sensitivity analysis for a distributed hydrological model of Yichun River Basin, China, 480, 58–68, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.12.005, 2013.
Zomer, R. J., Bossio, D. A., Trabucco, A., Yuanjie, L., Gupta, D. C., and Singh, V. P.: Trees and Water: Smallholder Agroforestry on Irrigated Lands in Northern India, IWMI Research Report 122, International Water Management Institute, Colombo, Sri Lanka, 2007 (data available at: http://www.cgiar-csi.org/data/global-aridity-and-pet-database).
Zomer, R. J., Trabucco, A., Bossio, D. A., van Straaten, O., and Verchot, L. V.: Climate Change Mitigation: A Spatial Analysis of Global Land Suitability for Clean Development Mechanism Afforestation and Reforestation, Agr. Ecosyst. Environ., 126, 67–80, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2008.01.014, 2008 (data available at: http://www.cgiar-csi.org/data/global-aridity-and-pet-database).
Short summary
Models are tools for understanding how watersheds function and may respond to land cover and climate change. Before we can use models towards these purposes, we need to ensure that a model adequately represents watershed-wide observations. In this paper, we propose a new way to evaluate whether model simulations match observations, using a variety of information sources. We show how this information can reduce uncertainty in inputs to models, reducing uncertainty in hydrologic predictions.
Models are tools for understanding how watersheds function and may respond to land cover and...
