HESS Hydrology and Earth System Sciences HESS Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 1607-7938 Copernicus Publications Göttingen, Germany 10.5194/hess-13-883-2009 Gauging the ungauged basin: how many discharge measurements are needed? Seibert J. 1 2 Beven K. J. 3 4 University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden Lancaster University, Lancaster, LA1 4YQ, UK Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden 22 06 2009 13 6 883 892 Copyright: © 2009 J. Seibert 2009 This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this licence, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ This article is available from https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/13/883/2009/hess-13-883-2009.html The full text article is available as a PDF file from https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/13/883/2009/hess-13-883-2009.pdf

Runoff estimation in ungauged catchments is probably one of the most basic and oldest tasks of hydrologists. This long-standing issue has received increased attention recently due to the PUB (Prediction in Ungauged Basins) initiative. Given the challenges of predicting runoff for ungauged catchments one might argue that the best course of action is to take a few runoff measurements. In this study we explored how implementing such a procedure might support predictions in an ungauged basin. We used a number of monitored Swedish catchments as hypothetical ungauged basins where we pretended to start with no runoff data and then added different sub-sets of the available data to constrain a simple catchment model. These sub-sets consisted of a limited number of single runoff measurements; in other words these data represent what could be measured with limited efforts in an ungauged basin. We used a Monte Carlo approach and predicted runoff as a weighted ensemble mean of simulations using acceptable parameter sets. We found that the ensemble prediction clearly outperformed the predictions using single parameter sets and that surprisingly little runoff data was necessary to identify model parameterizations that provided good results for the "ungauged" test periods. These results indicated that a few runoff measurements can contain much of the information content of continuous runoff time series. However, the study also indicated that results may differ significantly between catchments and also depend on the days chosen for taking the measurements.

 References Bergström, S.: Parametervärden för HBV-modellen i Sverige: erfarenheter från modellkalibreringar under perioden 1975–1989, Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute, Norrköping, 35&nbsp;pp., 1990. Bergström, S.: The HBV Model: Its Structure and Applications, Swedish vMeteorological and Hydrological Institute (SMHI), Hydrology, Norrköping, 35&nbsp;pp., 1992. Bergström, S.: The HBV model (Chapter&nbsp;13), in: Computer Models of Watershed Hydrology, edited by: Singh, V. P., Water Resources Publications, Highlands Ranch, Colorado, USA, 443–476, 1995. Beven, K.: On undermining the science?, Hydrol. Process., 20, 3141–3146, 2006. Beven, K.: Towards integrated environmental models of everywhere: uncertainty, data and modelling as a learning process, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 11, 460–467, 2007. Beven, K. and Binley, A.: Future of distributed models: Model calibration and uncertainty prediction, Hydrol. Process., 6, 279–298, 1992. Beven, K. J.: Environmental Modelling: An Uncertain Future?, Routledge London, 310&nbsp;pp., 2009. Beven, K. J., Smith, P. J., and Freer, J. E.: So just why would a modeller choose to be incoherent?, J. Hydrol., 354, 15–32, 2008. Binley, A. and Beven, K.: Vadose Zone Flow Model Uncertainty as Conditioned on Geophysical Data, Ground Water, 41, 119–127, 2003. Bonell, M., McDonnell, J. J., Scatena, F. N., Seibert, J., Uhlenbrook, S., and Van Lanen, H. A. J.: HELPing FRIENDs in PUBs: charting a course for synergies within international water research programmes in gauged and ungauged basins, Hydrol. Process., 20, 1867–1874, 2006. Eng, K. and Milly, P. C. D.: Relating low-flow characteristics to the base flow recession time constant at partial record stream gauges, Water Resour. Res., 43, W01201, https://doi.org/10.1029/2006WR005293, 2007. Eriksson, B.: Den potentiella evaporationen i Sverige, Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute, SMHI, 40&nbsp;pp., 1981 (in Swedish, The potential evaporation in Sweden). Eriksson, B.: Data rörande Sveriges Nederbördsklimat-Normalvärden för perioden 1951–80 (Data concerning the precipitation climate of Sweden-Normal values for the period 1951–80), SMHI Rapport, Norrköping, 92&nbsp;pp., 1983 (in Swedish). Harlin, J. and Kung, C. S.: Parameter uncertainty and simulation of design floods in Sweden, J. Hydrol. (Amsterdam), 137, 209–230, 1992. Hughes, D., Greenwood, P., Coulson, G., Blair, G., Pappenberger, F., Smith, P., and Beven, K.: GridStix: Supporting Flood Prediction using Embedded Hardware and Next Generation Grid Middleware, International Workshop on Wireless Mobile Multimedia, 621–626, 2006. Juston, J., Seibert, J., and Johansson, P. O.: Temporal sampling strategies and uncertainty in calibrating a conceptual hydrological model for a small boreal catchment, Hydrol. Process., in press, 2009. Kavetski, D., Kuczera, G., and Franks, S. W.: Bayesian analysis of input uncertainty in hydrological modeling: 1. Theory, Water Resour. Res., 42, W03407, https://doi.org/10.1029/2005WR004368, 2006. Kuczera, G., Kavetski, D., Franks, S., and Thyer, M.: Towards a Bayesian total error analysis of conceptual rainfall-runoff models: Characterising model error using storm-dependent parameters, J. Hydrol., 331, 161–177, 2006. Lindström, G., Johansson, B., Persson, M., Gardelin, M., and Bergström, S.: Development and test of the distributed HBV-96 hydrological model, J. Hydrol., 201, 272–288, 1997. Mantovan, P. and Todini, E.: Hydrological forecasting uncertainty assessment: Incoherence of the GLUE methodology, J. Hydrol., 330, 368–381, 2006. McIntyre, N., Lee, H., Wheater, H., Young, A., and Wagener, T.: Ensemble predictions of runoff in ungauged catchments, Water Resour. Res., 41, 3307–3323, 2005. McIntyre, N. R. and Wheater, H. S.: Calibration of an in-river phosphorus model: prior evaluation of data needs and model uncertainty, J. Hydrol., 290, 100–116, 2004. Nash, J. E. and Sutcliffe, J. V.: River flow forecasting through conceptual models, I, A discussion of principles, J. Hydrol., 10, 282–290, 1970. Perrin, C., Oudin, L., Andreassian, V., Rojas-Serna, C., Michel, C., and Mathevet, T.: Impact of limited streamflow data on the efficiency and the parameters of rainfall-runoff models, Hydrolog. Sci. J., 52, 131–151, 2007. Rode, M., Suhr, U., and Wriedt, G.: Multi-objective calibration of a river water quality model–-Information content of calibration data, Ecol. Modell., 204, 129–142, 2007. Rojas-Serna, C., Michel, C., Perrin, C., and Andreassian, V.: Ungauged catchments: how to make the most of a few streamflow measurements?, Large Sample Basin Experiments for Hydrological Model Parameterization: Results of the Model Parameter Experiment – MOPEX, IAHS publication, 307, 230–236, 2006. Seibert, J.: Estimation of parameter uncertainty in the HBV model, Nord. Hydrol., 28, 247–262, 1997. Seibert, J.: Regionalisation of parameters for a conceptual rainfall-runoff model, Agr. Forest Meteorol., 98, 279–293, 1999. Seibert, P.: Hydrological characteristics of the NOPEX research area, Undergraduate thesis, Institute of Earth Sciences/Hydrology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden, 51&nbsp;pp., 1994. Sivapalan, M., Schaake, J., and Sapporo, J.: PUB Science and Implementation Plan, V5., online available at: <a href="http://pub.iwmi.org/UI/Images/PUB_Science_Plan_V_5.pdf">http://pub.iwmi.org/UI/Images/PUB_Science_Plan_V_5.pdf</a>, IAHS Decade on Predictions in Ungauged Basins (PUB), 2003a. Sivapalan, M., Takeuchi, K., Franks, S., Gupta, V. K., Karambiri, H., Lakshmi, V., Liang, X., McDonnell, J., Mendiondo, E., O'Connell, E. P., Oki, T., Pomeroy, J. W., Schertzer, D., Uhlenbrook, S., and Zehe, E.: IAHS decade on predictions in ungauged basins (PUB), 2003-2012: Shaping an exciting future for the hydrologic sciences, Hydrolog. Sci. J., 48, 857–880, 2003b. Smith, P., Beven, K. J., and Tawn, J. A.: Informal likelihood measures in model assessment: Theoretic development and investigation, Adv. Water Res., 31, 1087–1100, 2008. Sorooshian, S., Gupta, V. K., and Fulton, J. L.: Evaluation of maximum likelihood parameter estimation techniques for conceptual rainfall-runoff models: Influence of calibration data variability and length on model credibility, Water Resour. Res., 19, 251–259, 1983. Vrugt, J. A., ter Braak, C. J. F., Clark, M. P., Hyman, J. M., and Robinson, B. A.: Treatment of input uncertainty in hydrologic modeling: Doing hydrology backward with Markov chain Monte Carlo simulation, Water Resour. Res., 44, W00B09, https://doi.org/10.1029/2007WR006720, 2008. Yadav, M., Wagener, T., and Gupta, H.: Regionalization of constraints on expected watershed response behavior for improved predictions in ungauged basins, Adv. Water Res., 30, 1756–1774, 2007. Yapo, P. O., Gupta, H. V., and Sorooshian, S.: Automatic calibration of conceptual rainfall-runoff models: sensitivity to calibration data, J. Hydrol., 181, 23–48, 1996. Zhang, Z., Wagener, T., Reed, P., and Bhushan, R.: Reducing uncertainty in predictions in ungauged basins by combining hydrologic indices regionalization and multiobjective optimization, Water Resour. Res, 44, W00B04, https://doi.org/10.1029/2008WR006833, 2008.