Articles | Volume 19, issue 1
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-19-209-2015
© Author(s) 2015. 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-19-209-2015
© Author(s) 2015. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
Research article
| Highlight paper
| 
14 Jan 2015
Research article | Highlight paper |
| 14 Jan 2015
Development of a large-sample watershed-scale hydrometeorological data set for the contiguous USA: data set characteristics and assessment of regional variability in hydrologic model performance
National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder CO, USA
M. P. Clark
National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder CO, USA
K. Sampson
National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder CO, USA
National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder CO, USA
L. E. Hay
United States Geological Survey, Modeling of Watershed Systems, Lakewood CO, USA
A. Bock
United States Geological Survey, Modeling of Watershed Systems, Lakewood CO, USA
R. J. Viger
United States Geological Survey, Modeling of Watershed Systems, Lakewood CO, USA
D. Blodgett
United States Geological Survey, Center for Integrated Data Analytics, Middleton WI, USA
L. Brekke
US Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver CO, USA
J. R. Arnold
US Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources, Seattle WA, USA
T. Hopson
National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder CO, USA
Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China
Related authors
Cyril Thébault, Wouter J. M. Knoben, Nans Addor, Andrew J. Newman, Diana Spieler, Nicolás A. Vásquez, Yalan Song, Gaby J. Gründemann, Shaun Carney, Mukesh Kumar, Katie van Werkhoven, Chaopeng Shen, Andrew W. Wood, and Martyn P. Clark
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 30, 3945–3977, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-30-3945-2026, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-30-3945-2026, 2026
Short summary
Short summary
Reliable river flow prediction guide water supply planning and flood protection. We tested whether selecting or combining multiple models improves accuracy compared with a single model. 78 models were used and tested in 559 river basins across the United States. A carefully chosen single model nearly matched more complex multi-model approaches, while combining models gave slightly higher accuracy and lower uncertainty. However, no approach worked best everywhere.
Mari R. Tye, Ming Ge, Jadwiga H. Richter, Ethan D. Gutmann, Allyson Rugg, Cindy L. Bruyère, Sue Ellen Haupt, Flavio Lehner, Rachel McCrary, Andrew J. Newman, and Andy Wood
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 29, 1117–1133, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-1117-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-1117-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
There is a perceived mismatch between the spatial scales on which global climate models can produce data and those needed for water management decisions. However, poor communication of specific metrics relevant to local decisions is also a problem. We assessed the credibility of a set of water management decision metrics in the Community Earth System Model v2 (CESM2). CESM2 shows potentially greater use of its output in long-range water management decisions.
Guoqiang Tang, Andrew W. Wood, Andrew J. Newman, Martyn P. Clark, and Simon Michael Papalexiou
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 1153–1173, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1153-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1153-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Ensemble geophysical datasets are crucial for understanding uncertainties and supporting probabilistic estimation/prediction. However, open-access tools for creating these datasets are limited. We have developed the Python-based Geospatial Probabilistic Estimation Package (GPEP). Through several experiments, we demonstrate GPEP's ability to estimate precipitation, temperature, and snow water equivalent. GPEP will be a useful tool to support uncertainty analysis in Earth science applications.
Ulises M. Sepúlveda, Pablo A. Mendoza, Naoki Mizukami, and Andrew J. Newman
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 3419–3445, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-3419-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-3419-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
This paper characterizes parameter sensitivities across more than 5500 grid cells for a commonly used macroscale hydrological model, including a suite of eight performance metrics and 43 soil, vegetation and snow parameters. The results show that the model is highly overparameterized and, more importantly, help to provide guidance on the most relevant parameters for specific target processes across diverse climatic types.
David R. Casson, Guoqiang Tang, Nicolás Vásquez, Andrew W. Wood, and Martyn P. Clark
The Cryosphere, 20, 5895–5940, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-20-5895-2026, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-20-5895-2026, 2026
Short summary
Short summary
Improving mountain snow prediction requires better representation of meteorological uncertainty. This study generates meteorological ensembles accounting for topography, gauge undercatch, and large-scale atmospheric patterns. Driving a physics-based snow model calibrated using a Large Sample Emulator with these ensembles propagates forcing uncertainty into snow accumulation and melt, producing probablistic estimates for data assimilation and hydrological forecasting.
Allen Gerhard Hunt, Sonali Mohan, Yongqiang Zhang, Witold Krajewski, and Qingyun Duan
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-5030, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-5030, 2026
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Hydrology and Earth System Sciences (HESS).
Short summary
Short summary
The theory of streamflow recession given captures the fundamental structure of observations. Universal aspects of recession are here consequences of fundamental relationships from percolation theory for flow in porous media, e.g., universal relationships of flow out of a catchment to catchment volume, or for connectivity of flow and storage. The observed tendency for recession to become more highly non-linear with decreasing flow is reproduced, though not all predictions verify quantitatively.
Lauren H. North, Adrienne M. Marshall, Glenn A. Tootle, Lisa Davis, Andy W. Wood, and Eric J. Anderson
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 30, 5195–5214, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-30-5195-2026, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-30-5195-2026, 2026
Short summary
Short summary
We assessed the U.S. National Hydrologic Model's ability to simulate several components of the water cycle using multiple datasets of environmental variables. We find that the model's accuracy in streamflow simulation is positively and negatively impacted by the additional constraints, and more model parameters are identified as important. Our results inform operational hydrologic modeling by illuminating the complexities of using the continually expanding suite of data products.
Cyril Thébault, Wouter J. M. Knoben, Nans Addor, Andrew J. Newman, Diana Spieler, Nicolás A. Vásquez, Yalan Song, Gaby J. Gründemann, Shaun Carney, Mukesh Kumar, Katie van Werkhoven, Chaopeng Shen, Andrew W. Wood, and Martyn P. Clark
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 30, 3945–3977, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-30-3945-2026, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-30-3945-2026, 2026
Short summary
Short summary
Reliable river flow prediction guide water supply planning and flood protection. We tested whether selecting or combining multiple models improves accuracy compared with a single model. 78 models were used and tested in 559 river basins across the United States. A carefully chosen single model nearly matched more complex multi-model approaches, while combining models gave slightly higher accuracy and lower uncertainty. However, no approach worked best everywhere.
Mengtian Wu, Xuan Huang, Pengcheng Xu, Han Chen, Xu Yang, Jin Xu, and Qingyun Duan
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 30, 3145–3163, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-30-3145-2026, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-30-3145-2026, 2026
Short summary
Short summary
Groundwater contamination can be hard to diagnose quickly when sources are hidden underground. We develop a new framework that integrate multiple search chains in two stages: first they scan widely using an evolutionary algorithm, then they cooperate to refine source locations with Tabu Search. Fast surrogate models replace part of the time-consuming simulations. In case studies, this approach identifies source information more accurately and saves substantial computing time.
Scott Peckham, Keith Jennings, Wanru Wu, Andy Wood, and Lauren Bolotin
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5786, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5786, 2026
Preprint archived
Short summary
Short summary
Several US federal agencies (e.g., USGS, NOAA, USDA, and NSF) collect information for river basins to support their water-related missions. Data is published online in named collection that each have their own attributes and objectives. HARBOR harmonizes and brings together all these datasets, just as many large cargo ships can be moored in one harbor. It also classifies basins based on hydrologic similarity, helping researchers find the best model for predicting their hydrologic response.
Ethan Ritchie, Andrew W. Wood, Ryan Johnson, Adrienne Marshall, Josh Sturtevant, Dane Liljestrand, and Emily Golitzin
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5514, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5514, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Snow water equivalent (SWE) is a critical water resource to many regions globally. Estimating SWE remains a challenge in hydrology highlighting the need for consistent evaluation frameworks. This study applied a standard approach for SWE evaluation across a range of datasets in the western US, using the Airborne Snow Observatory (ASO) SWE dataset as the reference observational dataset. We outline and demonstrate an example of a community evaluation protocol using datasets in this study.
Mozhgan A. Farahani, Andrew W. Wood, Guoqiang Tang, and Naoki Mizukami
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 29, 4515–4537, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-4515-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-4515-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We present a new strategy to calibrate large-domain land/hydrology models over diverse regions. Using the Structure for Unifying Multiple Modeling Alternatives (SUMMA) and mizuRoute models, our approach integrates catchment attributes, parameters, and performance metrics to optimize streamflow simulations. Leveraging advances in machine learning for hydrology, we improve calibration and enable regionalization to ungauged basins, which is valuable for national-scale water security studies.
Anjana Devanand, Jason P. Evans, Andy J. Pitman, Sujan Pal, David Gochis, and Kevin Sampson
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 29, 4491–4513, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-4491-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-4491-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Including lateral flow increases evapotranspiration near major river channels in high-resolution land surface simulations in southeast Australia, consistent with observations. The 1-km resolution model shows a widespread pattern of dry ridges that does not exist at coarser resolutions. Our results have implications for improved simulations of droughts and future water availability.
Simon Moulds, Louise Slater, Louise Arnal, and Andrew W. Wood
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 29, 2393–2406, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-2393-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-2393-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Seasonal streamflow forecasts are an important component of flood risk management. Here, we train and test a machine learning model to predict the monthly maximum daily streamflow up to 4 months ahead. We train the model on precipitation and temperature forecasts to produce probabilistic hindcasts for 579 stations across the UK for the period 2004–2016. We show skilful results up to 4 months ahead in many locations, although, in general, the skill declines with increasing lead time.
Wouter J. M. Knoben, Ashwin Raman, Gaby J. Gründemann, Mukesh Kumar, Alain Pietroniro, Chaopeng Shen, Yalan Song, Cyril Thébault, Katie van Werkhoven, Andrew W. Wood, and Martyn P. Clark
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 29, 2361–2375, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-2361-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-2361-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Hydrologic models are needed to provide simulations of water availability, floods, and droughts. The accuracy of these simulations is often quantified with so-called performance scores. A common thought is that different models are more or less applicable to different landscapes, depending on how the model works. We show that performance scores are not helpful in distinguishing between different models and thus cannot easily be used to select an appropriate model for a specific place.
Rajesh Kumar, Piyush Bhardwaj, Cenlin He, Jennifer Boehnert, Forrest Lacey, Stefano Alessandrini, Kevin Sampson, Matthew Casali, Scott Swerdlin, Olga Wilhelmi, Gabriele G. Pfister, Benjamin Gaubert, and Helen Worden
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 17, 1807–1834, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-17-1807-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-17-1807-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We have created a 14-year hourly air quality dataset at 12 km resolution by combining satellite observations of atmospheric composition with air quality models over the contiguous United States (CONUS). The dataset has been found to reproduce key observed features of air quality over the CONUS. To enable easy visualization and interpretation of county-level air quality measures and trends by stakeholders, an ArcGIS air quality dashboard has also been developed.
Mari R. Tye, Ming Ge, Jadwiga H. Richter, Ethan D. Gutmann, Allyson Rugg, Cindy L. Bruyère, Sue Ellen Haupt, Flavio Lehner, Rachel McCrary, Andrew J. Newman, and Andy Wood
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 29, 1117–1133, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-1117-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-1117-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
There is a perceived mismatch between the spatial scales on which global climate models can produce data and those needed for water management decisions. However, poor communication of specific metrics relevant to local decisions is also a problem. We assessed the credibility of a set of water management decision metrics in the Community Earth System Model v2 (CESM2). CESM2 shows potentially greater use of its output in long-range water management decisions.
Arezoo Rafieeinasab, Amir Mazrooei, Thomas Enzminger, Ishita Srivastava, Aubrey Dugger, David Gochis, Nina Omani, Joe Grim, Kevin Sampson, Yongxin Zhang, Jacob LaFontaine, Roland Viger, Yuqiong Liu, and Tim Schneider
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2024-262, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2024-262, 2024
Manuscript not accepted for further review
Short summary
Short summary
Integrated Water Availability Assessments is a national initiative to characterize water availability in the U.S. The WRF-Hydro model is used to generate an estimate of hydrological fluxes and storage across the conterminous United States. The streamflow performance is reasonable especially in the eastern and western U.S. Model performance in estimating snow, evapotranspiration and soil moisture is also reasonable with some differences against the verification datasets in certain areas.
Louise Arnal, Martyn P. Clark, Alain Pietroniro, Vincent Vionnet, David R. Casson, Paul H. Whitfield, Vincent Fortin, Andrew W. Wood, Wouter J. M. Knoben, Brandi W. Newton, and Colleen Walford
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 4127–4155, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-4127-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-4127-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Forecasting river flow months in advance is crucial for water sectors and society. In North America, snowmelt is a key driver of flow. This study presents a statistical workflow using snow data to forecast flow months ahead in North American snow-fed rivers. Variations in the river flow predictability across the continent are evident, raising concerns about future predictability in a changing (snow) climate. The reproducible workflow hosted on GitHub supports collaborative and open science.
Guoqiang Tang, Andrew W. Wood, Andrew J. Newman, Martyn P. Clark, and Simon Michael Papalexiou
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 1153–1173, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1153-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1153-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Ensemble geophysical datasets are crucial for understanding uncertainties and supporting probabilistic estimation/prediction. However, open-access tools for creating these datasets are limited. We have developed the Python-based Geospatial Probabilistic Estimation Package (GPEP). Through several experiments, we demonstrate GPEP's ability to estimate precipitation, temperature, and snow water equivalent. GPEP will be a useful tool to support uncertainty analysis in Earth science applications.
Baptiste Vandecrux, Jason E. Box, Andreas P. Ahlstrøm, Signe B. Andersen, Nicolas Bayou, William T. Colgan, Nicolas J. Cullen, Robert S. Fausto, Dominik Haas-Artho, Achim Heilig, Derek A. Houtz, Penelope How, Ionut Iosifescu Enescu, Nanna B. Karlsson, Rebecca Kurup Buchholz, Kenneth D. Mankoff, Daniel McGrath, Noah P. Molotch, Bianca Perren, Maiken K. Revheim, Anja Rutishauser, Kevin Sampson, Martin Schneebeli, Sandy Starkweather, Simon Steffen, Jeff Weber, Patrick J. Wright, Henry Jay Zwally, and Konrad Steffen
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 15, 5467–5489, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-5467-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-5467-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
The Greenland Climate Network (GC-Net) comprises stations that have been monitoring the weather on the Greenland Ice Sheet for over 30 years. These stations are being replaced by newer ones maintained by the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland (GEUS). The historical data were reprocessed to improve their quality, and key information about the weather stations has been compiled. This augmented dataset is available at https://doi.org/10.22008/FK2/VVXGUT (Steffen et al., 2022).
Louise J. Slater, Louise Arnal, Marie-Amélie Boucher, Annie Y.-Y. Chang, Simon Moulds, Conor Murphy, Grey Nearing, Guy Shalev, Chaopeng Shen, Linda Speight, Gabriele Villarini, Robert L. Wilby, Andrew Wood, and Massimiliano Zappa
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 27, 1865–1889, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-1865-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-1865-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Hybrid forecasting systems combine data-driven methods with physics-based weather and climate models to improve the accuracy of predictions for meteorological and hydroclimatic events such as rainfall, temperature, streamflow, floods, droughts, tropical cyclones, or atmospheric rivers. We review recent developments in hybrid forecasting and outline key challenges and opportunities in the field.
Erin Towler, Sydney S. Foks, Aubrey L. Dugger, Jesse E. Dickinson, Hedeff I. Essaid, David Gochis, Roland J. Viger, and Yongxin Zhang
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 27, 1809–1825, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-1809-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-1809-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Hydrologic models developed to assess water availability need to be systematically evaluated. This study evaluates the long-term performance of two high-resolution hydrologic models that simulate streamflow across the contiguous United States. Both models show similar performance overall and regionally, with better performance in minimally disturbed basins than in those impacted by human activity. At about 80 % of the sites, both models outperform the seasonal climatological benchmark.
Ting Su, Chiyuan Miao, Qingyun Duan, Jiaojiao Gou, Xiaoying Guo, and Xi Zhao
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 27, 1477–1492, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-1477-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-1477-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
The Three-River Source Region (TRSR) plays an extremely important role in water resources security and ecological and environmental protection in China and even all of Southeast Asia. This study used the variable infiltration capacity (VIC) land surface hydrologic model linked with the degree-day factor algorithm to simulate the runoff change in the TRSR. These results will help to guide current and future regulation and management of water resources in the TRSR.
Ulises M. Sepúlveda, Pablo A. Mendoza, Naoki Mizukami, and Andrew J. Newman
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 3419–3445, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-3419-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-3419-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
This paper characterizes parameter sensitivities across more than 5500 grid cells for a commonly used macroscale hydrological model, including a suite of eight performance metrics and 43 soil, vegetation and snow parameters. The results show that the model is highly overparameterized and, more importantly, help to provide guidance on the most relevant parameters for specific target processes across diverse climatic types.
Cited articles
Allen, R. G., Pereira, L. S., Raes, D., and Smith, M.: Crop evapotranspiration: guidelines for computing crop water requirements. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, 15 pp., 1988.
Anderson, E. A.: National Weather Service River Forecast System – Snow accumulation and ablation model. NOAA Technical Memorandum, NWS, HYDRO-17, US Department of Commerce, Silver Spring, MD, 217 pp., 1973.
Anderson, E. A.: Calibration of conceptual hydrologic models for use in river forecasting. NOAA Technical Report, NWS 45, Hydrology Laboratory, Silver Spring, MD, 2002.
Anderson, R. M., Koren, V. I., and Reed, S. M.: Using SSURGO data to improve Sacramento Model a priori parameter estimates, J. Hydrol., 320, 103–116, 2006.
Andreassian, V., Oddos, A., Michel, C., Anctil, F., Perrin, C., and Loumange, C.: Impact of spatial aggregation of inputs and parameters on the efficiency of rainfall-runoff models: A theoretical study using chimera watersheds, Water Resour. Res., 40, W05209, https://doi.org/10.1029/2003WR002854, 2004.
Beldring, S., Engeland, K., Roald, L. A., Sælthun, N. R., and Voksø, A.: Estimation of parameters in a distributed precipitation-runoff model for Norway, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 7, 304–316, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-7-304-2003, 2003.
Beven, K. and Westerberg, I.: On red herrings and real herrings: disinformation and information in hydrological inference, Hydrol. Process., 25, 1676–1680, 2011.
Beven, K., Smith, P. J., and Wood, A.: On the colour and spin of epistemic error (and what we might do about it), Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 15, 3123–3133, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-15-3123-2011, 2011.
Blodgett, D. L., Booth, N. L., Kunicki, T. C., Walker, J. L., and Viger, R. J.: Description and testing of the geo data portal: A data integration framework and web processing services for environmental science collaboration. US Geological Survey, Open-File Report 2011-1157, 9 pp., Middleton WI, USA, 2011.
Burnash, R. J. C.: The NWS River Forecast System – Catchment model, in: Computer Models of Watershed Hydrology, edited by: Singh, V. P., 311–366, Water Resources Publications, Highlands Ranch, Colo, 1995.
Burnash, R. J. C., Ferral, R. L., McGuire, R. A.: A generalized streamflow simulation system conceptual modeling for digital computers, US Department of Commerce National Weather Service and State of California Department of Water Resources, 1973.
Clark, C. O.: Storage and the unit hydrograph. Proc. Am. Soc. Civ. Eng., 9, 1333–1360, 1945.
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 hydrologic models, Water Resour. Res., 44, W00B02, https://doi.org/10.1029/2007WR006735, 2008.
Dooge, J. C. I.: A general theory of the unit hydrograph, J. Geophys. Res., 64, 241–256, 1959.
Duan, Q., Sorooshian, S., and Gupta, V. K.: Effective and efficient global optimization for conceptual rainfall-runoff models, Water Resour. Res., 28, 1015–1031, 1992.
Duan, Q., Gupta, V. K., and Sorooshian, S.: A shuffled complex evolution approach for effective and efficient optimization, J. Optimiz. Theor. Appl., 76, 501–521, 1993.
Duan, Q., Sorooshian, S., and Gupta, V. K.: Optimal use of the SCE-UA global optimization method for calibrating watershed models, J. Hydrol., 158, 265–284, 1994.
Duan, Q., Schaake, J., Andreassian, V., Franks, S., Goteti, G., Gupta, H. V., Gusev, Y. M., Habets, F., Hall, A., Hay, L., Houge, T., Huang, M., Leavesley, G., Liang, X., Nasonova, O. N., Noilhan, J., Oudin, L., Sorooshian, S., Wagener, T., and Wood, E. F.: Model Parameter Estimation Experiment (MOPEX): An overview of science strategy and major results from the second and third workshops, J. Hydrol., 320, 3–17, 2006.
Durre, I., Menne, M. J., and Vose, R. S.: Strategies for evaluating quality assurance procedures, J. Appl. Meteor. Climatol., 47, 1785–1791, https://doi.org/10.1175/2007JAMC1706.1, 2008.
Durre, I., Menne, M. J., Gleason, B. E., Houston, T. G., and Vose, R. S.: Comprehensive Automated Quality Assurance of Daily Surface Observations, J. Appl. Meteor. Climatol., 49, 1615–1633, https://doi.org/10.1175/2010JAMC2375.1, 2010.
Evin, G., Thyer, M., Kavetski, D., McInerney, D., and Kuczera, G.: Comparison of joint versus postprocessor approaches for hydrological uncertainty estimation accounting for error autocorrelation and heteroscedasticity, Water Resour. Res., 50, 2350–2375, https://doi.org/10.1002/2013WR014185, 2014.
Falcone, J. A.: GAGES-II: Geospatial Attributes of Gages for Evaluating Streamflow. Digital spatial data set 2011, available at: http://water.usgs.gov/GIS/metadata/usgswrd/XML/gagesII_Sept2011.xml (last access: 10 October 2013), 2011.
Falcone. J. A., Carlisle, D. M., Wolock, D. M., and Meador, M. R.: GAGES: A stream gage database for evaluating natural and altered flow conditions in the conterminous United States. Ecology, 91, p. 621, A data paper in Ecological Archives E091-045-D1, available at: http://esapubs.org/Archive/ecol/E091/045/metadata.htm (last access: 5 April 2014), 2010.
Garrick, M., Cunnane, C., and Nash, J. E.: A criterion of efficiency for rainfall-runoff models, J. Hydrology, 36, 375–381, 1978.
Gupta, H. V., Kling, H., Yilmaz, K. K., and Martinez-Barquero, G. F.: Decomposition of the mean squared error and NSE performance criteria: Implications for improving hydrological modeling, J. Hydrol., 377, 80–91, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.08.003, 2009.
Gupta, H. V., Perrin, C., Blöschl, G., Montanari, A., Kumar, R., Clark, M., and Andréassian, V.: Large-sample hydrology: a need to balance depth with breadth, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 18, 463–477, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-18-463-2014, 2014.
Jensen, M. E., Burman, R. D., and Allen, R. G.: Evapotranspiration and irrigation water requirements. American Society of Civil Engineers, ASCE Manual and Reports on Engineering Practice, 332 p., New York, NY, 1990.
Jin, S., Yang, L., Danielson, P., Homer, C., Fry, J., and Xian, G.: A comprehensive change detection method for updating the National Land Cover Database to circa 2011, Remote Sens. Environ., 132, 159–175, 2013.
Kauffeldt, A., Halldin, S., Rodhe, A., Xu, C.-Y., and Westerberg, I. K.: Disinformative data in large-scale hydrological modelling, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 17, 2845–2857, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-17-2845-2013, 2013.
Kavetski, D. and Fenicia, F.: Elements of a flexible approach for conceptual hydrological modeling: 2. Application and experimental insights, Water Resour. Res., 47, W11511, https://doi.org/10.1029/2011WR010748, 2011.
Kavetski, D., Kuczera, G., and Franks, S. W.: Bayesian analysis of input uncertainty in hydrological modeling: 2. Application, Water Resour. Res., 42, W03407, https://doi.org/10.1029/2005WR004376, 2006.
Klemes, V.: Operational testing of hydrological simulation models, Hydrol. Sci. J., 31, 13–24, 1986.
Koren, V. I., Smith, M., Wang, D., and Zhang, Z.: Use of soil property data in the derivation of conceptual rainfall-runoff model parameters. American Meteorological Society 15th Conference on Hydrology, Long Beach, CA, 103–106, 2000.
Kumar, R., Samaniego, L., and Attinger, S.: Implications of distributed hydrologic model parameterization on water fluxes at multiple scales and locations, Water Resour. Res., 49, 360–379, https://doi.org/10.1029/2012WR012195, 2013.
Lins, H. F.: USGS Hydro-Climatic Data Network 2009 (HCDN-2009), US Geological Survey, Fact Sheet 2012-3047, Reston VA, USA, 2012.
Livneh, B. and Lettenmaier, D. P.: Multi-criteria parameter estimation for the Unified Land Model, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 16, 3029–3048, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-16-3029-2012, 2012.
Livneh, B. and Lettenmaier, D. P.: Regional parameter estimation for the Unified Land Model, Water Resour. Res., 49, 100–114, https://doi.org/10.1029/2012WR012220, 2013.
Livneh, B., Rosenberg, E. A., Lin, C., Nijssen, B., Mishra, V., Andreadis, K. M., Maurer, E. P., and Lettenmaier, D. P.: A Long-Term Hydrologically Based Dataset of Land Surface Fluxes and States for the Conterminous United States: Update and Extensions, J. Climate, 26, 9384–9392, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00508.1, 2013.
Lohmann, D., Mitchell, K. E., Houser, P. R., Wood, E. F., Schaake, J. C., Robock, A., Cosgrove, B. A., Sheffield, J., Duan, Q., Luo, L., Higgins, R. W., Pinker, R. T., and Tarpley, J. D.: Streamflow and water balance intercomparisons of four land surface models in the North American Land Data Assimilation System project, J. Geophys. Res., 109, D07S91, https://doi.org/10.1029/2003JD003517, 2004.
Martinec, J. and Rango, A.: Merits of statistical criteria for the performance of hydrological models, Water Resour. B., 25, 421–432, 1989.
Martinez, G. and Gupta, H. V.: Toward improved identification of hydrologic models: A diagnostic evaluation of the "abcd" monthly water balance model for the conterminous United States, Water Resour. Res., 46, W08507, https://doi.org/10.1029/2009WR008294, 2010.
Martinez, G. and Gupta, H. V.: Hydrologic consistency as a basis for assessing complexity of monthly water balance models for the continental United States, Water Resour. Res., 47, W12540, https://doi.org/10.1029/2011WR011229, 2011.
Maurer, E. P., Wood, A. W., Adam, J. C., Lettenmaier, D. P., and Nijssen, B.: A long-term hydrologically-based data set of land surface fluxes and states for the conterminous United States, J. Climate, 15, 3237–3251, 2002.
Menne, M. J., Williams Jr., C. N., and Vose, R. S.: The U.S. Historical Climatology Network monthly temperature data, version 2, Bull. Am. Meteor. Soc., 90, 993–1007, https://doi.org/10.1175/2008BAMS2613.1, 2009
Menne, M. J., Williams, C. N., and Palecki, M. A.: On the reliability of the U.S. surface temperature record, J. Geophys. Res., 115, D11108, https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JD013094, 2010.
Merz, R. and Bloschl, G.: Regionalization of catchment model parameters, J. Hydrol., 287, 95–123, 2004.
Mizukami, N., Koren, V., Smith, M., Kingsmill, D., Zhang, Z., Cosgrove, B., and Cui, Z.: The impact of precipitation type discrimination on hydrologic simulation: Rain-snow partitioning derived from HMT-West radar-detected brightband height versus surface temperature data, J. Hydrometeorol., 14, 1139–1158, https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM-D-12-035.1, 2013.
Morton, F. I.: Operational estimates of actual evapotranspiration and their significance to the science and practice of hydrology, J. Hydrol., 66, 1–76, 1983.
Nash, J. E.: The form of the instantaneous unit hydrograph, International Association of Scientific Hydrology Publication, 45, 114–121, Toronto ON, CA, 1957.
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.
Nathan, R. J. and McMahon, T. A.: The SFB model, Part I – Validation of fixed model parameters, Civil Eng. Trans., CE32, 157–161, 1990.
Nester, T., Kirnbauer, R., Gutknecht, D., and Bloschl, G.: Climate and catchment controls on the performance of regional flood simulations, J. Hydrol., 402, 340–356, 2011.
Nester, T., Kirnbauer, R., Parajka, J., and Bloschl, G.: Evaluating the snow component of a flood forecasting model, Hydrol. Res., 43, 762–779, 2012.
Oubeidillah, A. A., Kao, S.-C., Ashfaq, M., Naz, B. S., and Tootle, G.: A large-scale, high-resolution hydrological model parameter data set for climate change impact assessment for the conterminous US, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 18, 67–84, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-18-67-2014, 2014.
Oudin, L., Andreassian, V., Mathevet, T., Perrin, C., and Michel, C.: Dynamic averaging of rainfall-runoff model simulations from complementary model parameterizations, Water Resour. Res., 42, W07410, https://doi.org/10.1029/2005WR004636, 2006.
Oudin, L., Kay, A. L., Andreassian, V., and Perrin, C.: Are seemingly physically similar catchments truly hydrologically similar?, Water Resour. Res., 46, W11558, https://doi.org/10.1029/2009WR008887, 2010.
Perrin, C., Michel, C., and Andreassian, V.: Does a large number of parameters enhance model performance? Comparative assessment of common catchment model structures on 429 catchments, J. Hydrol., 242, 275–301, https://doi.org/210.1016/S0022-1694(1000)00393-00390, 2001.
Pokhrel, P. and Gupta, H. V.: On the use of spatial regularization strategies to improve calibration of distributed watershed models, Water Resour. Res., 46, W01505, https://doi.org/10.1029/2009WR008066, 2010.
Priestly, C. H. B. and Taylor, R. J.: On the assessment of surface heat flux and evaporation using large-scale parameters, Mon. Weather Rev., 100, 81–82, 1972.
Samaniego, L., Bardossy, A., and Lumar, R.: Streamflow prediction in ungauged catchments using copula-based dissimilarity measures, Water Resour. Res., 46, W02506, https://doi.org/10.1029/2008WR007695, 2010.
Schaake, J., Cong, S., Duan, Q.: U.S. MOPEX data set. Report UCRL-JRNL-221228, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore CA, USA, available at: https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/333681.pdf (last access: 10 September 2014), 2006.
Schaefli, B., Hingray, B., Niggli, M., and Musy, A.: A conceptual glacio-hydrological model for high mountainous catchments, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 9, 95–109, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-9-95-2005, 2005.
Schaefli, B. and Gupta, H. V.: Do Nash values have value?, Hydrol. Process., 21, 2075–2080, https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.6825, 2007.
Schlosser, C. A., Slater, A. G., Robock, A., Pitman, A. J., Vinnikov, K. Y., Henderson-Sellers, A., Speranskaya, N. A., Mitchell, K., and the PILPS 2(d) contributors: Simulations of a boreal grassland hydrology at Valdai, Russia: PILPS phase 2(d), Mon. Weather Rev., 128, 301–321, 2000.
Sherman, L. K.: Streamflow from rainfall by the unit graph method, Eng. News Rec., 108, 501–505, 1932.
Shi, X., Wood, A. W., and Letenmaier, D. P.: How essential is hydrologic model calibration to seasonal streamflow forecasting?, J. Hydrometeorol., 9, 1350–1363, 2008.
Shuttleworth, W. J. and Calder, I. R.: Has the Priestly-Taylor equation any relevance to forest evaporation?, J. Appl. Meteorol., 18, 639–646, 1979.
Slack, J. R. and Landwehr, J. M.: Hydro-Climatic Data Network (HCDN): A US Geological Survey streamflow data set for the United States for the study of climate variations, 1874–1988, US Geological Survey, Open-File Report 92-129, Reston VA, USA, 1992.
Sorooshian, S., Duan, Q., and Gupta, V. K.: Calibration of conceptual rainfall-runoff models using global optimization: application to the Sacramento soil moisture accounting model, Water Resour. Res., 29, 1185–1194, 1993.
Thornton, P. E. and Running, S. W.: An improved algorithm for estimating incident daily solar radiation from measurements of temperature, humidity and precipitation, Agr. Forest Meteorol., 93, 211–228, 1999.
Thornton, P. E., Running, S. W., and White, M. A.: Generating surfaces of daily meteorological variables over large regions of complex terrain, J. Hydrol., 190, 214–251, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(96)03128-9, 1997.
Thornton, P. E., Hasenauer, H., and White, M. A.: Simultaneous estimation of daily solar radiation and humidity from observed temperature and precipitation: An application over complex terrain in Austria, Agr. Forest Meteorol., 104, 255–271, 2000.
Thornton, P. E., Thornton, M. M., Mayer, B. W., Wilhelmi, N., Wei, Y., and Cook, R. B.: Daymet: Daily surface weather on a 1 km grid for North America, 1980–2012, available at: http://daymet.ornl.gov/ (last access: 15 July 2013) from Oak Ridge National Laboratory Distributed Active Archive Center, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, USA, 2012.
Viger, R. J.: Preliminary spatial parameters for PRMS based on the Geospatial Fabric, NLCD2001 and SSURGO, US Geological Survey, https://doi.org/10.5066/F7WM1BF7, 2014.
Viger, R. J. and Bock, A.: GIS Features of the Geospatial Fabric for National Hydrologic Modeling, US Geological Survey, https://doi.org/10.5066/F7542KMD, 2014.
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.
Xia, Y., Mitchell, K., Ek, M., Sheffield, J., Cosgrove, B., Wood, E., Luo, L., Alonge, C., Wei, H., Meng, J., Livneh, B., Lettenmaier, D., Koren, V., Duan, Q., Mo, K., Fan, Y., and Mocko, D.: Continental-scale water and energy flux analysis and validation for the North American Land Data Assimilation System project phase 2 (NLDAS-2): 1. Intercomparison and application of model products, J. Geophys. Res., 117, D03109, https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JD016048, 2012.
Yang, D., Goodison, B. E., Metcalfe, J. R., Golubev, V. S., Bates, R., Pangburn, T., and Hanson, C. L.: Accuracy of NWS 8" standard nonrecording precipitation gauge: Results and application of WMO intercomparison, J. Atmos. Ocean. Technol., 15, 54–68, 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.
Zhang, Z., Koren, V., Reed, S., Smith, M., Zhang, Y., Moreda, F., and Cosgrove, B.: SAC-SMA a priori parameter differences and their impact on distributed hydrologic model simulations, J. Hydrol., 420–421, 216–227, 2012.
Zotarelli, L., Dukes, M. D., Romero, C. C., Migliaccio, K. W., and Morgan, K. T.: Step by step calculation of the Penman-Monteith Evapotranspiration (FAO-56 Method). University of Florida Extension, AE459, available at: http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu (last access: 1 April 2014), 10 pp., 2009.
Short summary
The focus of this paper is to (1) present a community data set of daily forcing and hydrologic response data for 671 unimpaired basins across the contiguous United States that spans a very wide range of hydroclimatic conditions, and (2) provide a calibrated model performance benchmark using a common conceptual snow and hydrologic modeling system. This benchmark provides a reference level of model performance across a very large basin sample and highlights regional variations in performance.
The focus of this paper is to (1) present a community data set of daily forcing and hydrologic...
