Articles | Volume 25, issue 3
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-1189-2021
© 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-25-1189-2021
© Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Benchmarking an operational hydrological model for providing seasonal forecasts in Sweden
Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute, 601 76
Norrköping, Sweden
Louise Crochemore
Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute, 601 76
Norrköping, Sweden
INRAE, UR Riverly, 69100 Villeurbanne, France
Ilias G. Pechlivanidis
Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute, 601 76
Norrköping, Sweden
Related authors
No articles found.
Claudia Canedo Rosso, Lars Nyberg, and Ilias Pechlivanidis
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1843, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1843, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Severe droughts have increasingly affected water supply, farming, and forestry in Sweden. This study explored how drought risks have changed over time and across regions using meteorological and hydrological data. Results showed that droughts are becoming more frequent in central and south-eastern Sweden, while northern areas are getting wetter. These insights can support early warnings and help guide decisions on drought preparedness and climate adaptation.
Akshay Singhal, Louise Crochemore, Isabelle Ruin, and Sanjeev K. Jha
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 29, 947–967, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-947-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-947-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
A serious game experiment is presented which assesses the interplay between hazard, exposure, and vulnerability in a flash flood event. The results show that participants' use of information to make decisions was based on the severity of the situation. Participants used precipitation forecast and exposure to make correct decisions in the first round, while they used precipitation forecast and vulnerability information in the second round.
Anne F. Van Loon, Sarra Kchouk, Alessia Matanó, Faranak Tootoonchi, Camila Alvarez-Garreton, Khalid E. A. Hassaballah, Minchao Wu, Marthe L. K. Wens, Anastasiya Shyrokaya, Elena Ridolfi, Riccardo Biella, Viorica Nagavciuc, Marlies H. Barendrecht, Ana Bastos, Louise Cavalcante, Franciska T. de Vries, Margaret Garcia, Johanna Mård, Ileen N. Streefkerk, Claudia Teutschbein, Roshanak Tootoonchi, Ruben Weesie, Valentin Aich, Juan P. Boisier, Giuliano Di Baldassarre, Yiheng Du, Mauricio Galleguillos, René Garreaud, Monica Ionita, Sina Khatami, Johanna K. L. Koehler, Charles H. Luce, Shreedhar Maskey, Heidi D. Mendoza, Moses N. Mwangi, Ilias G. Pechlivanidis, Germano G. Ribeiro Neto, Tirthankar Roy, Robert Stefanski, Patricia Trambauer, Elizabeth A. Koebele, Giulia Vico, and Micha Werner
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 24, 3173–3205, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-24-3173-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-24-3173-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Drought is a creeping phenomenon but is often still analysed and managed like an isolated event, without taking into account what happened before and after. Here, we review the literature and analyse five cases to discuss how droughts and their impacts develop over time. We find that the responses of hydrological, ecological, and social systems can be classified into four types and that the systems interact. We provide suggestions for further research and monitoring, modelling, and management.
Riccardo Biella, Anastasiya Shyrokaya, Ilias Pechlivanidis, Daniela Cid, Maria Carmen Llasat, Marthe Wens, Marleen Lam, Elin Stenfors, Samuel Sutanto, Elena Ridolfi, Serena Ceola, Pedro Alencar, Giuliano Di Baldassarre, Monica Ionita, Mariana Madruga de Brito, Scott J. McGrane, Benedetta Moccia, Viorica Nagavciuc, Fabio Russo, Svitlana Krakovska, Andrijana Todorovic, Faranak Tootoonchi, Patricia Trambauer, Raffaele Vignola, and Claudia Teutschbein
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2073, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2073, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This research by the Drought in the Anthropocene (DitA) network highlights the crucial role of forecasting systems and Drought Management Plans in European drought risk management. Based on a survey of water managers during the 2022 European drought, it underscores the impact of preparedness on response and the evolution of drought management strategies across the continent. The study concludes with a plea for a European Drought Directive.
Riccardo Biella, Ansastasiya Shyrokaya, Monica Ionita, Raffaele Vignola, Samuel Sutanto, Andrijana Todorovic, Claudia Teutschbein, Daniela Cid, Maria Carmen Llasat, Pedro Alencar, Alessia Matanó, Elena Ridolfi, Benedetta Moccia, Ilias Pechlivanidis, Anne van Loon, Doris Wendt, Elin Stenfors, Fabio Russo, Jean-Philippe Vidal, Lucy Barker, Mariana Madruga de Brito, Marleen Lam, Monika Bláhová, Patricia Trambauer, Raed Hamed, Scott J. McGrane, Serena Ceola, Sigrid Jørgensen Bakke, Svitlana Krakovska, Viorica Nagavciuc, Faranak Tootoonchi, Giuliano Di Baldassarre, Sandra Hauswirth, Shreedhar Maskey, Svitlana Zubkovych, Marthe Wens, and Lena Merete Tallaksen
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2069, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2069, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This research by the Drought in the Anthropocene (DitA) network highlights gaps in European drought management exposed by the 2022 drought and proposes a new direction. Using a Europe-wide survey of water managers, we examine four areas: increasing drought risk, impacts, drought management strategies, and their evolution. Despite growing risks, management remains fragmented and short-term. However, signs of improvement suggest readiness for change. We advocate for a European Drought Directive.
Samuel Morin, Hugues François, Marion Réveillet, Eric Sauquet, Louise Crochemore, Flora Branger, Étienne Leblois, and Marie Dumont
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 27, 4257–4277, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-4257-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-4257-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Ski resorts are a key socio-economic asset of several mountain areas. Grooming and snowmaking are routinely used to manage the snow cover on ski pistes, but despite vivid debate, little is known about their impact on water resources downstream. This study quantifies, for the pilot ski resort La Plagne in the French Alps, the impact of grooming and snowmaking on downstream river flow. Hydrological impacts are mostly apparent at the seasonal scale and rather neutral on the annual scale.
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.
N. Hempelmann, C. Ehbrecht, E. Plesiat, G. Hobona, J. Simoes, D. Huard, T. J. Smith, U. S. McKnight, I. G. Pechlivanidis, and C. Alvarez-Castro
Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spatial Inf. Sci., XLVIII-4-W1-2022, 187–194, https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-archives-XLVIII-4-W1-2022-187-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-archives-XLVIII-4-W1-2022-187-2022, 2022
Alban de Lavenne, Vazken Andréassian, Louise Crochemore, Göran Lindström, and Berit Arheimer
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 2715–2732, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-2715-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-2715-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
A watershed remembers the past to some extent, and this memory influences its behavior. This memory is defined by the ability to store past rainfall for several years. By releasing this water into the river or the atmosphere, it tends to forget. We describe how this memory fades over time in France and Sweden. A few watersheds show a multi-year memory. It increases with the influence of groundwater or dry conditions. After 3 or 4 years, they behave independently of the past.
Ruud T. W. L. Hurkmans, Bart van den Hurk, Maurice J. Schmeits, Fredrik Wetterhall, and Ilias G. Pechlivanidis
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2021-604, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2021-604, 2022
Manuscript not accepted for further review
Short summary
Short summary
Seasonal forecasts can help in safely and efficiently managing a fresh water reservoir in the Netherlands. We compare hydrological forecast systems of the river Rhine, the lakes most important source and analyze forecast skill for over 1993–2016 and for specific extreme years. On average, forecast skill is high in spring due to Alpine snow and smaller in summer. Dry summers appear to be more predictable, skill increases with event extremity. In those cases, seasonal forecasts are valuable tools.
Matteo Giuliani, Louise Crochemore, Ilias Pechlivanidis, and Andrea Castelletti
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 24, 5891–5902, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-5891-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-5891-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
This paper aims at quantifying the value of hydroclimatic forecasts in terms of potential economic benefit to end users in the Lake Como basin (Italy), which allows the inference of a relation between gains in forecast skill and gains in end user profit. We also explore the sensitivity of this benefit to both the forecast system setup and end user behavioral factors, showing that the estimated forecast value is potentially undermined by different levels of end user risk aversion.
Cited articles
Apel, H., Abdykerimova, Z., Agalhanova, M., Baimaganbetov, A., Gavrilenko, N., Gerlitz, L., Kalashnikova, O., Unger-Shayesteh, K., Vorogushyn, S., and Gafurov, A.: Statistical forecast of seasonal discharge in Central Asia using observational records: development of a generic linear modelling tool for operational water resource management, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 22, 2225–2254, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-2225-2018, 2018.
Arnal, L., Cloke, H. L., Stephens, E., Wetterhall, F., Prudhomme, C., Neumann, J., Krzeminski, B., and Pappenberger, F.: Skilful seasonal forecasts of streamflow over Europe?, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 22, 2057–2072, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-2057-2018, 2018.
Batté, L. and Déqué, M.: Randomly correcting model errors in the ARPEGE-Climate v6.1 component of CNRM-CM: applications for seasonal forecasts, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 2055–2076, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-2055-2016, 2016.
Bennett, J. C., Wang, Q. J., Robertson, D. E., Schepen, A., Li, M., and Michael, K.: Assessment of an ensemble seasonal streamflow forecasting system for Australia, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 21, 6007–6030, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-6007-2017, 2017.
Bergström, S.: Development and Application of a Conceptual Runoff Model
for Scandinavian Catchments, Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological
Institute (SMHI), Norrköping, Sweden, 1976.
Bohn, T. J., Sonessa, M. Y., and Lettenmaier, D. P.: Seasonal Hydrologic
Forecasting: Do Multimodel Ensemble Averages Always Yield Improvements in
Forecast Skill?, J. Hydrometeorol., 11, 1358–1372,
https://doi.org/10.1175/2010JHM1267.1, 2010.
Bruno Soares, M., Alexander, M., and Dessai, S.: Sectoral use of climate
information in Europe: A synoptic overview, Clim. Serv., 9, 5–20,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cliser.2017.06.001, 2018.
Candogan Yossef, N., van Beek, R., Weerts, A., Winsemius, H., and Bierkens, M. F. P.: Skill of a global forecasting system in seasonal ensemble streamflow prediction, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 21, 4103–4114, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-4103-2017, 2017.
Crochemore, L., Ramos, M.-H., Pappenberger, F., and Perrin, C.: Seasonal streamflow forecasting by conditioning climatology with precipitation indices, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 21, 1573–1591, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-1573-2017, 2017.
Crochemore, L., Ramos, M.-H., and Pechlivanidis, I. G.: Can Continental
Models Convey Useful Seasonal Hydrologic Information at the Catchment
Scale?, Water Resour. Res., 56, e2019WR025700, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019WR025700,
2020.
Day, G. N.: Extended Streamflow Forecasting Using NWSRFS, J. Water Resour.
Plan. Manag., 111, 157–170,
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9496(1985)111:2(157), 1985.
de Amorim, R. C. and Hennig, C.: Recovering the number of clusters in data
sets with noise features using feature rescaling factors, Inf. Sci., 324,
126–145, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2015.06.039, 2015.
DeChant, C. M. and Moradkhani, H.: Improving the characterization of initial condition for ensemble streamflow prediction using data assimilation, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 15, 3399–3410, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-15-3399-2011, 2011.
Donnelly, C., Andersson, J. C. M., and Arheimer, B.: Using flow signatures
and catchment similarities to evaluate the E-HYPE multi-basin model across
Europe, Hydrol. Sci. J., 61, 255–273,
https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2015.1027710, 2016.
Emerton, R., Zsoter, E., Arnal, L., Cloke, H. L., Muraro, D., Prudhomme, C., Stephens, E. M., Salamon, P., and Pappenberger, F.: Developing a global operational seasonal hydro-meteorological forecasting system: GloFAS-Seasonal v1.0, Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 3327–3346, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-3327-2018, 2018.
Euser, T., Winsemius, H. C., Hrachowitz, M., Fenicia, F., Uhlenbrook, S., and Savenije, H. H. G.: A framework to assess the realism of model structures using hydrological signatures, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 17, 1893–1912, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-17-1893-2013, 2013.
Foster, K., Bertacchi Uvo, C., and Olsson, J.: The development and evaluation of a hydrological seasonal forecast system prototype for predicting spring flood volumes in Swedish rivers, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 22, 2953–2970, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-2953-2018, 2018.
Girons Lopez, M., Di Baldassarre, G., and Seibert, J.: Impact of social
preparedness on flood early warning systems, Water Resour. Res., 53,
522–534, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016WR019387, 2017.
Giuliani, M., Crochemore, L., Pechlivanidis, I., and Castelletti, A.: From skill to value: isolating the influence of end user behavior on seasonal forecast assessment, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 24, 5891–5902, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-5891-2020, 2020.
Greuell, W., Franssen, W. H. P., and Hutjes, R. W. A.: Seasonal streamflow forecasts for Europe – Part 2: Sources of skill, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 23, 371–391, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-23-371-2019, 2019.
Gupta, H. V., Kling, H., Yilmaz, K. K., and Martinez, G. F.: Decomposition of
the mean squared error and NSE performance criteria: Implications for
improving hydrological modelling, J. Hydrol., 377, 80–91,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.08.003, 2009.
Harrigan, S., Prudhomme, C., Parry, S., Smith, K., and Tanguy, M.: Benchmarking ensemble streamflow prediction skill in the UK, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 22, 2023–2039, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-2023-2018, 2018.
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.
Huang, C., Newman, A. J., Clark, M. P., Wood, A. W., and Zheng, X.: Evaluation of snow data assimilation using the ensemble Kalman filter for seasonal streamflow prediction in the western United States, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 21, 635–650, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-635-2017, 2017.
Jeong, D.-I. and Kim, Y.-O.: Rainfall-runoff models using artificial neural
networks for ensemble streamflow prediction, Hydrol. Process., 19,
3819–3835, https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.5983, 2005.
Jin, X. and Han, J.: K-Means Clustering, in: Encyclopedia of Machine
Learning, edited by: Sammut, C. and Webb, G. I., Springer US,
Boston, MA, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-30164-8_425, 563–564, 2011.
Johansson, B.: Estimation of areal precipitation for hydrological medelling
in Sweden, PhD thesis, University of Gothenburg, Sweden, available at: https://gupea.ub.gu.se/handle/2077/15575 (last access: 24 June 2020), 2002.
Johnson, S. J., Stockdale, T. N., Ferranti, L., Balmaseda, M. A., Molteni, F., Magnusson, L., Tietsche, S., Decremer, D., Weisheimer, A., Balsamo, G., Keeley, S. P. E., Mogensen, K., Zuo, H., and Monge-Sanz, B. M.: SEAS5: the new ECMWF seasonal forecast system, Geosci. Model Dev., 12, 1087–1117, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-1087-2019, 2019.
Knoben, W. J. M., Woods, R. A., and Freer, J. E.: A Quantitative Hydrological
Climate Classification Evaluated With Independent Streamflow Data, Water
Resour. Res., 54, 5088–5109, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018WR022913, 2018.
Kuentz, A., Arheimer, B., Hundecha, Y., and Wagener, T.: Understanding hydrologic variability across Europe through catchment classification, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 21, 2863–2879, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-2863-2017, 2017.
Lindström, G. and Carlsson, B.: Evaluation of updating methods for short
range forecasting by the HBV model, in: Proceedings XXI Nordic Hydrological
Conference, Nordic Hydrological Program, Uppsala,
Sweden, 26–30 June 2000, vol. 46, 380–386, 2000.
Lindström, G. and Alexandersson, H.: Recent Mild and Wet Years in
Relation to Long Observation Records and Future Climate Change in Sweden,
AMBIO J. Hum. Environ., 33, 183–186,
https://doi.org/10.1579/0044-7447-33.4.183, 2004.
Lindström, G., Pers, C., Rosberg, J., Strömqvist, J., and Arheimer,
B.: Development and testing of the HYPE (Hydrological Predictions for the
Environment) water quality model for different spatial scales, Hydrol. Res.,
41, 295–319, https://doi.org/10.2166/nh.2010.007, 2010.
Macian-Sorribes, H., Pechlivanidis, I., Crochemore, L., and Pulido-Velazquez,
M.: Fuzzy Postprocessing to Advance the Quality of Continental Seasonal
Hydrological Forecasts for River Basin Management, J. Hydrometeorol.,
21, 2375–2389, https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM-D-19-0266.1, 2020.
McMillan, H., Westerberg, I., and Branger, F.: Five guidelines for selecting
hydrological signatures, Hydrol. Process., 31, 4757–4761,
https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.11300, 2017.
Meißner, D., Klein, B., and Ionita, M.: Development of a monthly to seasonal forecast framework tailored to inland waterway transport in central Europe, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 21, 6401–6423, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-6401-2017, 2017.
Monhart, S., Zappa, M., Spirig, C., Schär, C., and Bogner, K.: Subseasonal hydrometeorological ensemble predictions in small- and medium-sized mountainous catchments: benefits of the NWP approach, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 23, 493–513, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-23-493-2019, 2019.
Muhammad, A., Stadnyk, T. A., Unduche, F., and Coulibaly, P.: Multi-Model
Approaches for Improving Seasonal Ensemble Streamflow Prediction Scheme with
Various Statistical Post-Processing Techniques in the Canadian Prairie
Region, Water-Sui, 10, 1604, https://doi.org/10.3390/w10111604, 2018.
Musuuza, J. L., Gustafsson, D., Pimentel, R., Crochemore, L., and
Pechlivanidis, I.: Impact of Satellite and In Situ Data Assimilation on
Hydrological Predictions, Remote Sens., 12, 811,
https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12050811, 2020.
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.
Olsson, J., Uvo, C. B., Foster, K., and Yang, W.: Technical Note: Initial assessment of a multi-method approach to spring-flood forecasting in Sweden, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 20, 659–667, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-20-659-2016, 2016.
Pappenberger, F., Ramos, M. H., Cloke, H. L., Wetterhall, F., Alfieri, L.,
Bogner, K., Mueller, A., and Salamon, P.: How do I know if my forecasts are
better? Using benchmarks in hydrological ensemble prediction, J. Hydrol.,
522, 697–713, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2015.01.024, 2015a.
Pappenberger, F., Cloke, H. L., Parker, D. J., Wetterhall, F., Richardson,
D. S., and Thielen, J.: The monetary benefit of early flood warnings in
Europe, Environ. Sci. Policy, 51, 278–291,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.04.016, 2015b.
Pechlivanidis, I. G. and Arheimer, B.: Large-scale hydrological modelling by using modified PUB recommendations: the India-HYPE case, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 19, 4559–4579, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-19-4559-2015, 2015.
Pechlivanidis, I., Bosshard, T., Spångmyr, H., Lindström, G.,
Gustafsson, D., and Arheimer, B.: Uncertainty in the Swedish Operational
Hydrological Forecasting Systems, Second International Conference on Vulnerability and Risk Analysis and Management (ICVRAM) and the Sixth International Symposium on Uncertainty, Modeling, and Analysis (ISUMA)
13–16 July 2014, Liverpool, UK, 253–262, https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784413609.026, 2014.
Pechlivanidis, I. G., Gupta, H., and Bosshard, T.: An Information Theory
Approach to Identifying a Representative Subset of Hydro-Climatic
Simulations for Impact Modeling Studies, Water Resour. Res., 54,
5422–5435, https://doi.org/10.1029/2017WR022035, 2018.
Pechlivanidis, I. G., Crochemore, L., Rosberg, J., and Bosshard, T.: What Are
the Key Drivers Controlling the Quality of Seasonal Streamflow Forecasts?,
Water Resour. Res., 56, e2019WR026987,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2019WR026987, 2020.
Sawicz, K., Wagener, T., Sivapalan, M., Troch, P. A., and Carrillo, G.: Catchment classification: empirical analysis of hydrologic similarity based on catchment function in the eastern USA, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 15, 2895–2911, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-15-2895-2011, 2011.
Schepen, A., Zhao, T., Wang, Q. J., Zhou, S., and Feikema, P.: Optimising seasonal streamflow forecast lead time for operational decision making in Australia, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 20, 4117–4128, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-20-4117-2016, 2016.
Shukla, S., Sheffield, J., Wood, E. F., and Lettenmaier, D. P.: On the sources of global land surface hydrologic predictability, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 17, 2781–2796, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-17-2781-2013, 2013.
Singla, S., Céron, J.-P., Martin, E., Regimbeau, F., Déqué, M., Habets, F., and Vidal, J.-P.: Predictability of soil moisture and river flows over France for the spring season, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 16, 201–216, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-16-201-2012, 2012.
SMHI: Hypeweb, available at: https://hypeweb.smhi.se/, last access: 2 March 2021a.
SMHI: Vattenwebb, available at: https://vattenwebb.smhi.se/, last access: 2 March 2021b.
Strömqvist, J., Arheimer, B., Dahné, J., Donnelly, C., and
Lindström, G.: Water and nutrient predictions in ungauged basins: set-up
and evaluation of a model at the national scale, Hydrol. Sci. J., 57,
229–247, https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2011.637497, 2012.
Sun, L., Seidou, O., Nistor, I., and Liu, K.: Review of the Kalman-type
hydrological data assimilation, Hydrol. Sci. J., 61, 2348–2366,
https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2015.1127376, 2016.
Sutanto, S. J., Van Lanen, H. A. J., Wetterhall, F., and Llort, X.: Potential
of Pan-European Seasonal Hydrometeorological Drought Forecasts Obtained from
a Multihazard Early Warning System, B. Am. Meteor. Soc., 101,
E368–E393, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-18-0196.1, 2020.
Trambauer, P., Werner, M., Winsemius, H. C., Maskey, S., Dutra, E., and Uhlenbrook, S.: Hydrological drought forecasting and skill assessment for the Limpopo River basin, southern Africa, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 19, 1695–1711, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-19-1695-2015, 2015.
Viglione, A., Parajka, J., Rogger, M., Salinas, J. L., Laaha, G., Sivapalan, M., and Blöschl, G.: Comparative assessment of predictions in ungauged basins – Part 3: Runoff signatures in Austria, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 17, 2263–2279, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-17-2263-2013, 2013.
Vigo, I., Badal, M., Jiménez, I., Soret, A., Kielmanowicz, D., Salel,
M., Aaheim, H. A., Hermansen, E. A., Sillmann, J., Photiadou, C.,
Pechlivanidis, I. G., and Hernandez, K.: User needs and decision-making
processes that can benefit from S2S forecasts, Deliverable D2.1, S2S4E
Climate Services for Clean Energy, available at: https://s2s4e.eu/sites/default/files/2020-06/s2s4e_d21.pdf (last access: 5 March 2021), 2018.
Wanders, N., Thober, S., Kumar, R., Pan, M., Sheffield, J., Samaniego, L.,
and Wood, E. F.: Development and Evaluation of a Pan-European Multimodel
Seasonal Hydrological Forecasting System, J. Hydrometeorol., 2, 99–115,
https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM-D-18-0040.1, 2019.
Wang, E., Zhang, Y., Luo, J., Chiew, F. H. S., and Wang, Q. J.: Monthly and
seasonal streamflow forecasts using rainfall-runoff modeling and historical
weather data, Water Resour. Res., 47,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2010WR009922, 2011.
Westerberg, I. K., Wagener, T., Coxon, G., McMillan, H. K., Castellarin, A.,
Montanari, A., and Freer, J.: Uncertainty in hydrological signatures for
gauged and ungauged catchments, Water Resour. Res., 52, 1847–1865,
https://doi.org/10.1002/2015WR017635, 2016.
Wood, A. W. and Lettenmaier, D. P.: A Test Bed for New Seasonal Hydrologic
Forecasting Approaches in the Western United States, B. Am. Meteorol.
Soc., 87, 1699–1712, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-87-12-1699, 2006.
Wood, A. W. and Schaake, J. C.: Correcting Errors in Streamflow Forecast
Ensemble Mean and Spread, J. Hydrometeorol., 9, 132–148,
https://doi.org/10.1175/2007JHM862.1, 2008.
Yadav, M., Wagener, T., and Gupta, H.: Regionalization of constraints on
expected watershed response behavior for improved predictions in ungauged
basins, Adv. Water Resour., 30, 1756–1774,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2007.01.005, 2007.
Yossef, N. C., Winsemius, H., Weerts, A., Beek, R. van, and Bierkens, M. F.
P.: Skill of a global seasonal streamflow forecasting system, relative roles
of initial conditions and meteorological forcing, Water Resour. Res., 49,
4687–4699, https://doi.org/10.1002/wrcr.20350, 2013.
Zachrisson, G.: Svåra islossningar i Torneälven – Förslag till
skadeförebyggande åtgärder, SMHI, Norrköping, Sweden, 1989 (Swedish).
Short summary
The Swedish hydrological warning service is extending its use of seasonal forecasts, which requires an analysis of the available methods. We evaluate the simple ESP method and find out how and why forecasts vary in time and space. We find that forecasts are useful up to 3 months into the future, especially during winter and in northern Sweden. They tend to be good in slow-reacting catchments and bad in flashy and highly regulated ones. We finally link them with areas of similar behaviour.
The Swedish hydrological warning service is extending its use of seasonal forecasts, which...