Articles | Volume 25, issue 2
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-1033-2021
© Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-1033-2021
© Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Research article
| 
25 Feb 2021
Research article |
| 25 Feb 2021
| 25 Feb 2021
Impact of the quality of hydrological forecasts on the management and revenue of hydroelectric reservoirs – a conceptual approach
Manon Cassagnole
Université Paris-Saclay, INRAE, UR HYCAR, 1 Rue Pierre-Gilles de Gennes, 92160 Antony, France
Maria-Helena Ramos
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Université Paris-Saclay, INRAE, UR HYCAR, 1 Rue Pierre-Gilles de Gennes, 92160 Antony, France
Ioanna Zalachori
Université Paris-Saclay, INRAE, UR HYCAR, 1 Rue Pierre-Gilles de Gennes, 92160 Antony, France
now at: TERNA ENERGY, Hydroelectric Projects Department, Athens, Greece
Guillaume Thirel
Université Paris-Saclay, INRAE, UR HYCAR, 1 Rue Pierre-Gilles de Gennes, 92160 Antony, France
Rémy Garçon
EDF-DTG, Electricité de France, Division Technique Générale, Grenoble, France
Joël Gailhard
EDF-DTG, Electricité de France, Division Technique Générale, Grenoble, France
Thomas Ouillon
EDF-Lab, Electricité de France, Paris Saclay, Paris, France
Related authors
No articles found.
Guilherme M. Guimarães, Maria-Helena Ramos, and Ilias Pechlivanidis
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-6333, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-6333, 2026
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Hydrology and Earth System Sciences (HESS).
Short summary
Short summary
This article examines hydrological spells, ranging from successive floods to sub-seasonal alternations between high and low flows. To study these rare successions, we developed an original detection method using baseflow as a catchment recovery indicator. Applying this to 643 catchments in France, we characterize these spells, identifying distinct spatial variability. We found that rapid transitions from low to high flows are concentrated in the Rhone-Mediterranean and Rhine-Meuse basins.
Yves Tramblay, Guillaume Thirel, Laurent Strohmenger, Guillaume Evin, Lola Corre, Louis Heraut, and Eric Sauquet
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 29, 7023–7039, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-7023-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-7023-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
How does climate change impact floods in France? Using simulations for 3727 rivers with climate projections, results show that flood trends vary depending on the region. In the north, floods may become more severe, but in the south, the trends are mixed. Floods from intense rainfall are becoming more frequent, while snowmelt floods are strongly decreasing. Overall, the study shows that understanding what causes floods is key to predicting how they are likely to change with the climate.
Léonard Santos, Anthony Thomas, Gaëlle Tallec, Laurent Mounereau, Aaron Bluche, Bruno Lemaire, Rania Louafi, and Guillaume Thirel
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4197, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4197, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Water resources will be heavily impacted by climate change in the future, with low flows and water demand satisfaction expected to decline. This study uses an integrated water resources management model to examine future water demand scenarios, revealing that climate change will be the primary driver of changes. While adapting water uses could mitigate negative impacts, this will not be enough to adapt to climate change. The irrigation sector is expected to be the most impacted.
Annie Y.-Y. Chang, Shaun Harrigan, Maria-Helena Ramos, Massimiliano Zappa, Christian M. Grams, Daniela I. V. Domeisen, and Konrad Bogner
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3411, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3411, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
This study presents a machine learning-aided hybrid forecasting framework to improve early warnings of low flows in the European Alps. It combines weather regime information, streamflow observations, and model simulations (EFAS). Even using only weather regime data improves predictions over climatology, while integrating different data sources yields the best result, emphasizing the value of integrating diverse data sources.
Guillaume Evin, Benoit Hingray, Guillaume Thirel, Agnès Ducharne, Laurent Strohmenger, Lola Corre, Yves Tramblay, Jean-Philippe Vidal, Jérémie Bonneau, François Colleoni, Joël Gailhard, Florence Habets, Frédéric Hendrickx, Louis Héraut, Peng Huang, Matthieu Le Lay, Claire Magand, Paola Marson, Céline Monteil, Simon Munier, Alix Reverdy, Jean-Michel Soubeyroux, Yoann Robin, Jean-Pierre Vergnes, Mathieu Vrac, and Eric Sauquet
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2727, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2727, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Explore2 provides hydrological projections for 1,735 French catchments. Using QUALYPSO, this study assesses uncertainties, including internal variability. By the end of the century, low flows are projected to decline in southern France under high emissions, while other indicators remain uncertain. Emission scenarios and regional climate models are key uncertainty sources. Internal variability is often as large as climate-driven changes.
Eric Sauquet, Guillaume Evin, Sonia Siauve, Ryma Aissat, Patrick Arnaud, Maud Bérel, Jérémie Bonneau, Flora Branger, Yvan Caballero, François Colléoni, Agnès Ducharne, Joël Gailhard, Florence Habets, Frédéric Hendrickx, Louis Héraut, Benoît Hingray, Peng Huang, Tristan Jaouen, Alexis Jeantet, Sandra Lanini, Matthieu Le Lay, Claire Magand, Louise Mimeau, Céline Monteil, Simon Munier, Charles Perrin, Olivier Robelin, Fabienne Rousset, Jean-Michel Soubeyroux, Laurent Strohmenger, Guillaume Thirel, Flore Tocquer, Yves Tramblay, Jean-Pierre Vergnes, and Jean-Philippe Vidal
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1788, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1788, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The Explore2 project has provided an unprecedented set of hydrological projections in terms of the number of hydrological models used and the spatial and temporal resolution. The results have been made available through various media. Under the high-emission scenario, the hydrological models mostly agree on the decrease in seasonal flows in the south of France, confirming its hotspot status, and on the decrease in summer flows throughout France, with the exception of the northern part of France.
Léonard Santos, Vazken Andréassian, Torben O. Sonnenborg, Göran Lindström, Alban de Lavenne, Charles Perrin, Lila Collet, and Guillaume Thirel
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 29, 683–700, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-683-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-683-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
This work investigates how hydrological models are transferred to a period in which climate conditions are different to the ones of the period in which they were set up. The robustness assessment test built to detect dependencies between model error and climatic drivers was applied to three hydrological models in 352 catchments in Denmark, France and Sweden. Potential issues are seen in a significant number of catchments for the models, even though the catchments differ for each model.
Guillaume Thirel, Léonard Santos, Olivier Delaigue, and Charles Perrin
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 4837–4860, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-4837-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-4837-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We discuss how mathematical transformations impact calibrated hydrological model simulations. We assess how 11 transformations behave over the complete range of streamflows. Extreme transformations lead to models that are specialized for extreme streamflows but show poor performance outside the range of targeted streamflows and are less robust. We show that no a priori assumption about transformations can be taken as warranted.
Thibault Hallouin, François Bourgin, Charles Perrin, Maria-Helena Ramos, and Vazken Andréassian
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 4561–4578, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-4561-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-4561-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
The evaluation of the quality of hydrological model outputs against streamflow observations is widespread in the hydrological literature. In order to improve on the reproducibility of published studies, a new evaluation tool dedicated to hydrological applications is presented. It is open source and usable in a variety of programming languages to make it as accessible as possible to the community. Thus, authors and readers alike can use the same tool to produce and reproduce the results.
Cyril Thébault, Charles Perrin, Vazken Andréassian, Guillaume Thirel, Sébastien Legrand, and Olivier Delaigue
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 1539–1566, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-1539-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-1539-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Streamflow forecasting is useful for many applications, ranging from population safety (e.g. floods) to water resource management (e.g. agriculture or hydropower). To this end, hydrological models must be optimized. However, a model is inherently wrong. This study aims to analyse the contribution of a multi-model approach within a variable spatial framework to improve streamflow simulations. The underlying idea is to take advantage of the strength of each modelling framework tested.
Nils Poncet, Philippe Lucas-Picher, Yves Tramblay, Guillaume Thirel, Humberto Vergara, Jonathan Gourley, and Antoinette Alias
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 24, 1163–1183, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-24-1163-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-24-1163-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
High-resolution convection-permitting climate models (CPMs) are now available to better simulate rainstorm events leading to flash floods. In this study, two hydrological models are compared to simulate floods in a Mediterranean basin, showing a better ability of the CPM to reproduce flood peaks compared to coarser-resolution climate models. Future projections are also different, with a projected increase for the most severe floods and a potential decrease for the most frequent events.
Laurent Strohmenger, Eric Sauquet, Claire Bernard, Jérémie Bonneau, Flora Branger, Amélie Bresson, Pierre Brigode, Rémy Buzier, Olivier Delaigue, Alexandre Devers, Guillaume Evin, Maïté Fournier, Shu-Chen Hsu, Sandra Lanini, Alban de Lavenne, Thibault Lemaitre-Basset, Claire Magand, Guilherme Mendoza Guimarães, Max Mentha, Simon Munier, Charles Perrin, Tristan Podechard, Léo Rouchy, Malak Sadki, Myriam Soutif-Bellenger, François Tilmant, Yves Tramblay, Anne-Lise Véron, Jean-Philippe Vidal, and Guillaume Thirel
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 27, 3375–3391, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-3375-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-3375-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
We present the results of a large visual inspection campaign of 674 streamflow time series in France. The objective was to detect non-natural records resulting from instrument failure or anthropogenic influences, such as hydroelectric power generation or reservoir management. We conclude that the identification of flaws in flow time series is highly dependent on the objectives and skills of individual evaluators, and we raise the need for better practices for data cleaning.
Olivier Delaigue, Pierre Brigode, Guillaume Thirel, and Laurent Coron
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 27, 3293–3327, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-3293-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-3293-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Teaching hydrological modeling is an important, but difficult, matter. It requires appropriate tools and teaching material. In this article, we present the airGRteaching package, which is an open-source software tool relying on widely used hydrological models. This tool proposes an interface and numerous hydrological modeling exercises representing a wide range of hydrological applications. We show how this tool can be applied to simple but real-life cases.
Sammy Metref, Emmanuel Cosme, Matthieu Le Lay, and Joël Gailhard
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 27, 2283–2299, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-2283-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-2283-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Predicting the seasonal streamflow supply of water in a mountainous basin is critical to anticipating the operation of hydroelectric dams and avoiding hydrology-related hazard. This quantity partly depends on the snowpack accumulated during winter. The study addresses this prediction problem using information from streamflow data and both direct and indirect snow measurements. In this study, the prediction is improved by integrating the data information into a basin-scale hydrological model.
Maryse Charpentier-Noyer, Daniela Peredo, Axelle Fleury, Hugo Marchal, François Bouttier, Eric Gaume, Pierre Nicolle, Olivier Payrastre, and Maria-Helena Ramos
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 23, 2001–2029, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-23-2001-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-23-2001-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
This paper proposes a methodological framework designed for event-based evaluation in the context of an intense flash-flood event. The evaluation adopts the point of view of end users, with a focus on the anticipation of exceedances of discharge thresholds. With a study of rainfall forecasts, a discharge evaluation and a detailed look at the forecast hydrographs, the evaluation framework should help in drawing robust conclusions about the usefulness of new rainfall ensemble forecasts.
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.
Thibault Lemaitre-Basset, Ludovic Oudin, Guillaume Thirel, and Lila Collet
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 2147–2159, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-2147-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-2147-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Increasing temperature will impact evaporation and water resource management. Hydrological models are fed with an estimation of the evaporative demand of the atmosphere, called potential evapotranspiration (PE). The objectives of this study were (1) to compute the future PE anomaly over France and (2) to determine the impact of the choice of the method to estimate PE. Our results show that all methods present similar future trends. No method really stands out from the others.
Emixi Sthefany Valdez, François Anctil, and Maria-Helena Ramos
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 197–220, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-197-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-197-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
We investigated how a precipitation post-processor interacts with other tools for uncertainty quantification in a hydrometeorological forecasting chain. Four systems were implemented to generate 7 d ensemble streamflow forecasts, which vary from partial to total uncertainty estimation. Overall analysis showed that post-processing and initial condition estimation ensure the most skill improvements, in some cases even better than a system that considers all sources of uncertainty.
Paul Royer-Gaspard, Vazken Andréassian, and Guillaume Thirel
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 5703–5716, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-5703-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-5703-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Most evaluation studies based on the differential split-sample test (DSST) endorse the consensus that rainfall–runoff models lack climatic robustness. In this technical note, we propose a new performance metric to evaluate model robustness without applying the DSST and which can be used with a single hydrological model calibration. Our work makes it possible to evaluate the temporal transferability of any hydrological model, including uncalibrated models, at a very low computational cost.
Alexis Jeantet, Hocine Henine, Cédric Chaumont, Lila Collet, Guillaume Thirel, and Julien Tournebize
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 5447–5471, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-5447-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-5447-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
The hydrological subsurface drainage model SIDRA-RU is assessed at the French national scale, using a unique database representing the large majority of the French drained areas. The model is evaluated following its capacity to simulate the drainage discharge variability and the annual drained water balance. Eventually, the temporal robustness of SIDRA-RU is assessed to demonstrate the utility of this model as a long-term management tool.
Pierre Nicolle, Vazken Andréassian, Paul Royer-Gaspard, Charles Perrin, Guillaume Thirel, Laurent Coron, and Léonard Santos
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 5013–5027, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-5013-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-5013-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
In this note, a new method (RAT) is proposed to assess the robustness of hydrological models. The RAT method is particularly interesting because it does not require multiple calibrations (it is therefore applicable to uncalibrated models), and it can be used to determine whether a hydrological model may be safely used for climate change impact studies. Success at the robustness assessment test is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition of model robustness.
Paul C. Astagneau, Guillaume Thirel, Olivier Delaigue, Joseph H. A. Guillaume, Juraj Parajka, Claudia C. Brauer, Alberto Viglione, Wouter Buytaert, and Keith J. Beven
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 3937–3973, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-3937-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-3937-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
The R programming language has become an important tool for many applications in hydrology. In this study, we provide an analysis of some of the R tools providing hydrological models. In total, two aspects are uniformly investigated, namely the conceptualisation of the models and the practicality of their implementation for end-users. These comparisons aim at easing the choice of R tools for users and at improving their usability for hydrology modelling to support more transferable research.
Laurène J. E. Bouaziz, Fabrizio Fenicia, Guillaume Thirel, Tanja de Boer-Euser, Joost Buitink, Claudia C. Brauer, Jan De Niel, Benjamin J. Dewals, Gilles Drogue, Benjamin Grelier, Lieke A. Melsen, Sotirios Moustakas, Jiri Nossent, Fernando Pereira, Eric Sprokkereef, Jasper Stam, Albrecht H. Weerts, Patrick Willems, Hubert H. G. Savenije, and Markus Hrachowitz
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 1069–1095, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-1069-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-1069-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We quantify the differences in internal states and fluxes of 12 process-based models with similar streamflow performance and assess their plausibility using remotely sensed estimates of evaporation, snow cover, soil moisture and total storage anomalies. The dissimilarities in internal process representation imply that these models cannot all simultaneously be close to reality. Therefore, we invite modelers to evaluate their models using multiple variables and to rely on multi-model studies.
Cited articles
Ahmad, A., El-Shafie, A., Razali, S. F. M., and Mohamad, Z. S.: Reservoir
Optimization in Water Resources: a Review, Water Resour. Manage., 28, 3391–3405, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-014-0700-5, 2014. a
Ahmed, J. A. and Sarma, A. K.: Genetic Algorithm for Optimal Operating Policy
of a Multipurpose Reservoir, Water Resour. Manage., 19, 145–161,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-005-2704-7, 2005. a
Alemu, E. T., Palmer, R. N., Polebitski, A., and Meaker, B.: Decision Support
System for Optimizing Reservoir Operations Using Ensemble Streamflow
Predictions, J. Water Resour. Plan. Manage., 137, 72–82,
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0000088, 2011. a
Anghileri, D., Voisin, N., Castelletti, A., Pianosi, F., Nijssen, B., and
Lettenmaier, D.: Value of long-term streamflow forecasts to reservoir
operations for water supply in snow-dominated river catchments, Water Resour. Res., 52, 4209–4225, https://doi.org/10.1002/2015WR017864, 2016. a
Arsenault, R. and Côté, P.: Analysis of the effects of biases in ensemble streamflow prediction (ESP) forecasts on electricity production in hydropower reservoir management, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 23, 2735–2750,
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-23-2735-2019, 2019. a, b, c, d
Barros, M. T. L., Tsai, F. T.-C., Yang, S. L., Lopes, J. E. G., and Yeh, W.
W.-G.: Optimization of Large-Scale Hydropower System Operations, J. Water Resour. Plan. Manage., 129, 178–188, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9496(2003)129:3(178), 2003. a
Bellman, R.: Dynamic Programming, Defense Technical Information Center, New
Jersey, 1957. a
Boucher, M. A., Anctil, F., Perreault, L., and Tremblay, D.: A comparison
between ensemble and deterministic hydrological forecasts in an operational
context, Adv. Geosci., 29, 85–94, https://doi.org/10.5194/adgeo-29-85-2011, 2011. a
Boucher, M. A., Tremblay, D., Delorme, L., Perreault, L., and Anctil, F.:
Hydro-economic assessment of hydrological forecasting systems, J. Hydrol., 416–417, 133–144, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2011.11.042, 2012. a, b
Bremnes, J. B.: Improved calibration of precipitation forecasts using ensemble techniques 1. Part 3: Statistical calibration of multiple ensembles, Tech. rep., Norwegian Meteorological Institute, Oslo, Norway, 2008. a
Celeste, A. B. and Billib, M.: Evaluation of stochastic reservoir operation
optimization models, Adv. Water Resour., 32, 1429–1443,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2009.06.008, 2009. a, b
Côté, P. and Leconte, R.: Comparison of stochastic optimization algorithms for hydropower reservoir operation with ensemble streamflow prediction, J. Water Resour. Plan. Manage., 142, 04015046, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0000575, 2016. a, b
Crochemore, L., Ramos, M. H., and Pappenberger, F.: Bias correcting precipitation forecasts to improve the skill of seasonal streamflow forecasts, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 20, 3601–3618,
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-20-3601-2016, 2016. a
Desreumaux, Q., Leconte, R., and Côté, P.: Role of hydrologic information in stochastic dynamic programming: a case study of the Kemano hydropower system in British Columbia, Can. J. Civ. Eng., 41, 839–844,
https://doi.org/10.1139/cjce-2013-0370, 2014. a
Dobson, B., Wagener, T., and Pianosi, F.: An argument-driven classification and comparison of reservoir operation optimization methods, Adv. Water Resour., 128, 74–86, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2019.04.012, 2019. a, b
Faber, B. A. and Stedinger, J. R.: Reservoir optimization using sampling SDP
with ensemble streamflow prediction (ESP) forecasts, J. Hydrol., 249, 113–133, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(01)00419-X, 2001. a, b
Fan, F. M., Schwanenberg, D., Collischonn, W., and Weerts, A.: Verification of inflow into hydropower reservoirs using ensemble forecasts of the TIGGE
database for large scale basins in Brazil, J. Hydrol.: Reg. Stud., 4, 196–227, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrh.2015.05.012, 2015. a
Fan, Y. R., Huang, G. H., Li, Y. P., Wang, X. Q., and Li, Z.: Probabilistic
Prediction for Monthly Streamflow through Coupling Stepwise Cluster Analysis
and Quantile Regression Methods, Water Resour. Manage., 30, 5313–5331,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-016-1489-1, 2016. a
Fortin, V., Favre, A.-C., and Saïd, M.: Probabilistic forecasting from
ensemble prediction systems: Improving upon the best-member method by using a
different weight and dressing kernel for each member, Q. J. Roy. Meteorol. Soc., 132, 1349–1369, https://doi.org/10.1256/qj.05.167, 2006. a
Garçon, R.: Prévision opérationnelle des apports de la Durance à Serre-Ponçon à l'aide du modèle MORDOR. Bilan de l'année 1994–1995, La Houille Blanche, 5, 71–76, 1996. a
Gneiting, T., Raftery, A. E., Westveld III, A. H., and Goldman, T.: Calibrated Probabilistic Forecasting Using Ensemble Model Output Statistics and Minimum CRPS Estimation, Mon. Weather Rev., 133, 1098–1118,
https://doi.org/10.1175/mwr2904.1, 2005. a
Gneiting, T., Balabdaoui, F., and Raftery, A.: Probabilistic forecasts,
calibration and sharpness, J. Roy. Stat. Soc. B, 69, 243–268,
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9868.2007.00587.x, 2007. a, b, c
Haguma, D. and Leconte, R.: Long-Term Planning of Water Systems in the Context of Climate Non-Stationarity with Deterministic and Stochastic Optimization, Water Resour. Manage., 32, 1725–1739, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-017-1900-6, 2018. a, b
Hamlet, A., Huppert, D., and Lettenmaier, D.: Economic value of long-lead
streaflow forecasts for Columbia River hydropower, J. Water Resour. Plan. Manage., 128, 91–101, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9496(2002)128:2(91), 2002. a
Hersbach, H.: Decomposition of the Continuous Ranked Probability Score for
Ensemble Prediction Systems, Weather Forecast., 15, 559–570,
https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0434(2000)015<0559:dotcrp>2.0.co;2, 2000. a
Kelman, J., Stedinger, J. R., Cooper, L. A., Hsu, E., and Yuan, S.-Q.: Sampling stochastic dynamic programming applied to reservoir operation, Water
Resour. Res., 26, 447–454, https://doi.org/10.1029/WR026i003p00447, 1990. a
Kim, Y.-O., Eum, H.-I., Lee, E.-G., and Ko, I. H.: Optimizing Operational
Policies of a Korean Multireservoir System Using Sampling Stochastic Dynamic
Programming with Ensemble Streamflow Prediction, J. Water Resour. Plan. Manage., 133, 323–329, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9496(2007)133:1(4), 2007. a
Labadie, J. W.: Optimal Operation of Multireservoir Systems: State-of-the-Art
Review, J. Water Resour. Plan. Manage., 130, 93–111, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9496(2004)130:2(93), 2004. a
Laio, F. and Tamea, S.: Verification tools for probabilistic forecasts of continuous hydrological variables, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 11, 1267–1277, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-11-1267-2007, 2007. a
Lamontagne, J. and Stedinger, J.: Generating Synthetic Streamflow Forecasts
with Specified Precision, J. Water Resour. Plan. Manage., 144, 04018007, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0000915, 2018. a, b
Leleu, I., Tonnelier, I., Puechberty, R., Gouin, P., Viquendi, I., Cobos, L.,
Foray, A., Baillon, M., and Ndima, P.-O.: La refonte du système d'information national pour la gestion et la mise à disposition des données hydrométriques, La Houille Blanche, 1, 25–32, https://doi.org/10.1051/lhb/2014004, 2014. a
Ma, F., Ye, A., Deng, X., Zhou, Z., Liu, X., Duan, Q., Xu, J., Miao, C., Di,
Z., and Gong, W.: Evaluating the skill of NMME seasonal precipitation ensemble predictions for 17 hydroclimatic regions in continental China, Int. J. Climatol., 36, 132–144, https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.4333, 2016. a
Macian-Sorribes, H. and Pulido-Velazquez, M.: Integrating Historical Operating Decisions and Expert Criteria into a DSS for the Management of a
Multireservoir System, J. Water Resour. Plan. Manage., 143, 04016069, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0000712, 2017. a
Macian-Sorribes, H., Tilmant, A., and Pulido-Velazquez, M.: Improving operating policies of large-scale surface-groundwater systems through stochastic programming, Water Resour. Res., 53, 1407–1423,
https://doi.org/10.1002/2016wr019573, 2017. a
Maurer, E. P. and Lettenmaier, D. P.: Potential Effects of Long-Lead Hydrologic Predictability on Missouri River Main-Stem Reservoirs, J. Climate,
17, 174–186, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(2004)017<0174:peolhp>2.0.co;2, 2004. a
Mayne, D. Q., Rawlings, J. B., Rao, C. V., and Scokaert, P. O. M.: Constrained model predictive control: Stability and optimality, Automatica, 36, 789–814, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-1098(99)00214-9, 2000. a
MEDDE – Ministère de l'Ecologie, du Développement Durable et de l'Energie: Banque HYDRO, available at: http://hydro.eaufrance.fr/, last access: 14 February 2021. a
Ming, B., Liu, P., Bai, T., Tang, R., and Feng, M.: Improving Optimization
Efficiency for Reservoir Operation Using a Search Space Reduction Method, Water Resour. Manage., 31, 1173–1190, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-017-1569-x, 2017. a
Murphy, A.: What is a good forecast? An essay of the nature of goodness in
weather forecasting, Weather Forecast., 8, 281–293,
https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0434(1993)008<0281:WIAGFA>2.0.CO;2, 1993. a
Pagano, T. C., Wood, A. W., Ramos, M.-H., Cloke, H. L., Pappenberger, F., Clark, M. P., Cranston, M., Kavetski, D., Mathevet, T., Sorooshian, S., and
Verkade, J. S.: Challenges of Operational River Forecasting, J. Hydrometeorol., 15, 1692–1707, https://doi.org/10.1175/jhm-d-13-0188.1, 2014. a
Pereira, M. V. F. and Pinto, L. M. V. G.: Multi-stage stochastic optimization
applied to energy planning, Math. Program., 52, 359–375, https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01582895, 1991. a
Philbrick, C. R. and Kitanidis, P. K.: Limitations of Deterministic Optimization Applied to Reservoir Operations, J. Water Resour. Plan. Manage., 125, 135–142, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9496(1999)125:3(135), 1999. a
Rani, D. and Moreira, M. M.: Simulation–Optimization Modeling: A Survey and
Potential Application in Reservoir Systems Operation, Water Resour. Manage., 24, 1107–1138, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-009-9488-0, 2010. a
Roulin, E.: Skill and relative economic value of medium-range hydrological
ensemble predictions, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 11, 725–737,
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-11-725-2007, 2007. a
Schefzik, R., Thorarinsdottir, T. L., and Gneiting, T.: Uncertainty Quantification in Complex Simulation Models Using Ensemble Copula Coupling,
Stat. Sci., 28, 616–640, https://doi.org/10.1214/13-STS443, 2013. a
Stakhiva, E. and Stewart, B.: Needs for climate information in support of
decision-making in the water sector, Proced. Environ. Sci., 1, 102–119, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proenv.2010.09.008, 2010. a
Tang, G., Zhou, H., Li, N., Wang, F., Wang, Y., and Jian, D.: Value of
Medium-range Precipitation Forecasts in Inflow Prediction and Hydropower
Optimization, Water Resour. Manage., 24, 2721–2742, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-010-9576-1, 2010. a
Tejada-Guibert, J., Johnson, S., and Stedinger, J.: The Value of Hydrologic
Information in Stochastic Dynamic Programming Models of a Multi-Reservoir
System, Water Resour. Res., 31, 2571–2580, https://doi.org/10.1029/95WR02172, 1995. a
Thiboult, A. and Anctil, F.: On the difficulty to optimally implement the
Ensemble Kalman filter: An experiment based on many hydrological models and
catchments, J. Hydrol., 529, 1147–1160, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2015.09.036, 2015.
a
Tilmant, A. and Kelman, R.: A stochastic approach to analyze trade-offs and
risks associated with large-scale water resources systems, Water Resour. Res., 43, W06425, https://doi.org/10.1029/2006wr005094, 2007. a
Tilmant, A., Pinte, D., and Goor, Q.: Assessing marginal water values in
multipurpose multireservoir systems via stochastic programming, Water Resour. Res., 44, W12431, https://doi.org/10.1029/2008wr007024, 2008. a
Tilmant, A., Kinzelbach, W., Juizo, D., Beevers, L., Senn, D., and Casarotto,
C.: Economic valuation of benefits and costs associated with the coordinated
development and management of the Zambezi river basin, Water Policy, 14, 490–508, https://doi.org/10.2166/wp.2011.189, 2011. a
Tilmant, A., Arjoon, D., and Marques, G. F.: Economic Value of Storage in
Multireservoir Systems, J. Water Resour. Plan. Manage., 140, 375–383, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0000335, 2014. a
Trinh, B. N., Thielen-del Pozo, J., and Thirel, G.: The reduction continuous
rank probability score for evaluating discharge forecasts from hydrological
ensemble prediction systems, Atmos. Sci. Lett., 14, 61–65, https://doi.org/10.1002/asl2.417, 2013. a, b
Turner, S. W. D., Bennett, J. C., Robertson, D. E., and Galelli, S.: Complex
relationship between seasonal streamflow forecast skill and value in reservoir operations, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 21, 4841–4859,
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-4841-2017, 2017. a
Velázquez, J. A., Anctil, F., Ramos, M. H., and Perrin, C.: Can a multi-model approach improve hydrological ensemble forecasting? A study on 29 French catchments using 16 hydrological model structures, Adv. Geosci., 29, 33–42, https://doi.org/10.5194/adgeo-29-33-2011, 2011. a
Verkade, J. S., Brown, J. D., Reggiani, P., and Weerts, A. H.: Post-processing ECMWF precipitation and temperature ensemble reforecasts for operational hydrologic forecasting at various spatial scales, J. Hydrol., 501, 73–91, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2013.07.039, 2013. a
Waseem, M., Ajmal, M., and Kim, T.-W.: Ensemble hydrological prediction of
streamflow percentile at ungauged basins in Pakistan, J. Hydrol., 525, 130–137, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2015.03.042, 2015. a
Wu, X., Cheng, C., Lund, J. R., Niu, W., and Miao, S.: Stochastic dynamic
programming for hydropower reservoir operations with multiple local optima, J. Hydrol., 564, 712–722, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2018.07.026, 2018. a
Yoo, J.-H.: Maximization of hydropower generation through the application of a linear programming model, J. Hydrol., 376, 182–187,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.07.026, 2009. a
Yuan, L., Zhou, J., Li, C., Xie, M., and Mo, L.: Benefit and Risk Balance
Optimization for Stochastic Hydropower Scheduling, Water Resour. Manage., 30, 3347–3361, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-016-1354-2, 2016. a, b
Zalachori, I., Ramos, M., Garçon, R., Mathevet, T., and Gailhard, J.:
Statistical processing of forecasts for hydrological ensemble prediction: a
comparative study of different bias correction strategies, Adv. Sci. Res., 8, 135–141, https://doi.org/10.5194/asr-8-135-2012, 2012. a, b
