Articles | Volume 25, issue 7
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-3937-2021
© 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-25-3937-2021
© Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Technical note
| 
08 Jul 2021
Technical note |
| 08 Jul 2021
| 08 Jul 2021
Technical note: Hydrology modelling R packages – a unified analysis of models and practicalities from a user perspective
Paul C. Astagneau
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Université Paris-Saclay, INRAE, HYCAR Research Unit, Antony, France
Sorbonne Université, Paris, France
Guillaume Thirel
Université Paris-Saclay, INRAE, HYCAR Research Unit, Antony, France
Olivier Delaigue
Université Paris-Saclay, INRAE, HYCAR Research Unit, Antony, France
Joseph H. A. Guillaume
Institute for Water Futures and Fenner School of Environment & Society, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia
Juraj Parajka
Institute of Hydraulic and Water Resources Engineering, TU Vienna, Vienna, Austria
Claudia C. Brauer
Hydrology and Quantitative Water Management Group, Wageningen University and Research, Wageningen, the Netherlands
Alberto Viglione
Department of Environment, Land and Infrastructure Engineering, Politecnico di Torino, Turin, Italy
Wouter Buytaert
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Imperial College London, London, UK
Keith J. Beven
Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK
Related authors
Eduardo Muñoz-Castro, Bailey J. Anderson, Paul C. Astagneau, Daniel L. Swain, Pablo A. Mendoza, and Manuela I. Brunner
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-781, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-781, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Flood impacts can be enhanced when they occur after droughts, yet the effectiveness of hydrological models in simulating these events remains unclear. Here, we calibrated four conceptual hydrological models across 63 catchments in Chile and Switzerland to assess their ability to detect streamflow extremes and their transitions. We show that drought-to-flood transitions are more difficult to capture in semi-arid high-mountain catchments than in humid low-elevation catchments.
Paul C. Astagneau, Raul R. Wood, Mathieu Vrac, Sven Kotlarski, Pradeebane Vaittinada Ayar, Bastien François, and Manuela I. Brunner
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3966, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3966, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
To study floods and droughts are likely to change in the future, we use climate projections from climate models. However, we first need to adjust the systematic biases of these projections at the catchment scale before using them in hydrological models. Our study compares statistical methods that can adjust these biases, but specifically for climate projections that enable a quantification of internal climate variability. We provide recommendations on the most appropriate methods.
Sudhanshu Dixit, Sumit Sen, Tahmina Yasmin, Kieran Khamis, Debashish Sen, Wouter Buytaert, and David Hannah
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2081, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2081, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences (NHESS).
Short summary
Short summary
Flash floods are becoming more frequent in mountainous regions due to heavier rainstorms. To protect people and property, we are working to better understand local hydrology and improve the efficiency of early warning systems for urban flooding in Lesser Himalayas. By combining community knowledge, low-cost technology, we can enhance understanding of flood dynamics and strengthen preparedness in mountains. This work is a step toward building resilience by bridging science and community insight.
Claudia C. Brauer, Ruben O. Imhoff, and Remko Uijlenhoet
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1712, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1712, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
In lowland catchments, flood severity is determined by both the amount of rain and how wet the soil is prior to the rain event. We investigated the trade-off between these two factors and how this affects peaks in the river discharge, for both the current and future climate. We found that with climate change floods will increase in winter and spring, but decease in fall. The total number and severity of floods will increase. This can help water managers to design climate robust water management.
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
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Hydrology and Earth System Sciences (HESS).
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.
Emanuele Mombrini, Stefania Tamea, Alberto Viglione, and Roberto Revelli
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 29, 2255–2273, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-2255-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-2255-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
In northwestern Italy, overall drought conditions appear to have worsened over the last 60 years due to both precipitation deficits and increased evapotranspiration caused by temperature increases. In addition to changes in drought conditions, changes in the characteristics of drought periods, both at a local and at a region-wide level, are found. Links between all the aforementioned changes and terrain characteristics are highlighted, finding generally worse conditions in lower-lying areas.
William Veness, Alejandro Dussaillant, Gemma Coxon, Simon De Stercke, Gareth H. Old, Matthew Fry, Jonathan G. Evans, and Wouter Buytaert
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2035, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2035, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We investigated what users want from the next-generation of hydrological monitoring systems to better support science and innovation. Through literature review and interviews with experts, we found that beyond providing high-quality data, users particularly value additional support for collecting their own data, sharing it with others, and building collaborations with other data users. Designing systems with these needs in mind can greatly boost long-term engagement, data coverage and impact.
Yves Tramblay, Guillaume Thirel, Laurent Strohmenger, Guillaume Evin, Lola Corre, Louis Heraut, and Eric Sauquet
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1635, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1635, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
How climate change impacts floods in France? Using simulations for 3000 rivers in climate projections, results show that flood trends vary depending on the region. In the north, floods may become more severe, but in many other areas, 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.
Olivier Delaigue, Guilherme Mendoza Guimarães, Pierre Brigode, Benoît Génot, Charles Perrin, Jean-Michel Soubeyroux, Bruno Janet, Nans Addor, and Vazken Andréassian
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 17, 1461–1479, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-17-1461-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-17-1461-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
This dataset covers 654 rivers all flowing in France. The provided time series and catchment attributes will be of interest to those modelers wishing to analyze hydrological behavior and perform model assessments.
Eduardo Muñoz-Castro, Bailey J. Anderson, Paul C. Astagneau, Daniel L. Swain, Pablo A. Mendoza, and Manuela I. Brunner
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-781, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-781, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Flood impacts can be enhanced when they occur after droughts, yet the effectiveness of hydrological models in simulating these events remains unclear. Here, we calibrated four conceptual hydrological models across 63 catchments in Chile and Switzerland to assess their ability to detect streamflow extremes and their transitions. We show that drought-to-flood transitions are more difficult to capture in semi-arid high-mountain catchments than in humid low-elevation catchments.
Paul C. Astagneau, Raul R. Wood, Mathieu Vrac, Sven Kotlarski, Pradeebane Vaittinada Ayar, Bastien François, and Manuela I. Brunner
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3966, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3966, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
To study floods and droughts are likely to change in the future, we use climate projections from climate models. However, we first need to adjust the systematic biases of these projections at the catchment scale before using them in hydrological models. Our study compares statistical methods that can adjust these biases, but specifically for climate projections that enable a quantification of internal climate variability. We provide recommendations on the most appropriate methods.
Jonathan D. Mackay, Nicholas E. Barrand, David M. Hannah, Emily Potter, Nilton Montoya, and Wouter Buytaert
The Cryosphere, 19, 685–712, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-19-685-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-19-685-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We combine two globally capable glacier evolution models to include processes that are typically neglected but thought to control tropical glacier retreat (e.g. sublimation). We apply the model to Peru's Vilcanota-Urubamba Basin. The model captures observed glacier mass changes,but struggles with surface albedo dynamics. Projections show glacier mass shrinking to 17 % or 6 % of 2000 levels by 2100 under moderate- and high-emission scenarios, respectively.
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.
Günter Blöschl, Andreas Buttinger-Kreuzhuber, Daniel Cornel, Julia Eisl, Michael Hofer, Markus Hollaus, Zsolt Horváth, Jürgen Komma, Artem Konev, Juraj Parajka, Norbert Pfeifer, Andreas Reithofer, José Salinas, Peter Valent, Roman Výleta, Jürgen Waser, Michael H. Wimmer, and Heinz Stiefelmeyer
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 24, 2071–2091, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-24-2071-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-24-2071-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
A methodology of regional flood hazard mapping is proposed, based on data in Austria, which combines automatic methods with manual interventions to maximise efficiency and to obtain estimation accuracy similar to that of local studies. Flood discharge records from 781 stations are used to estimate flood hazard patterns of a given return period at a resolution of 2 m over a total stream length of 38 000 km. The hazard maps are used for civil protection, risk awareness and insurance purposes.
Elizabeth Follett, Keith Beven, Barry Hankin, David Mindham, and Nick Chappell
Proc. IAHS, 385, 197–201, https://doi.org/10.5194/piahs-385-197-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/piahs-385-197-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This paper presents a spreadsheet design tool for barriers in streams used for natural flood management. Retention times in such barriers should neither be too short (they fill and empty too quickly) or too long (they might already be full when a flood occurs). Previous work has shown the order of 10 h to be effective. The tool is freely available for download at https://www.jbatrust.org/how-we-help/publications-resources/rivers-and-coasts/nfm-leaky-barrier-retention-times.
Keith Beven, Trevor Page, Paul Smith, Ann Kretzschmar, Barry Hankin, and Nick Chappell
Proc. IAHS, 385, 129–134, https://doi.org/10.5194/piahs-385-129-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/piahs-385-129-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This paper presents a method of deciding when a hydrological model might be fit for purpose given the limitations of the data that are available for model evaluation. In this case the purpose is to reproduce the peak flows for an application that is concerned with evaluating the effect of natural flood management measures on flood peaks. It is shown that while all the models fail to pass the test at all time steps, there is an ensemble of models that pass for the hydrograph peaks.
Matteo Pesce, Alberto Viglione, Jost von Hardenberg, Larisa Tarasova, Stefano Basso, Ralf Merz, Juraj Parajka, and Rui Tong
Proc. IAHS, 385, 65–69, https://doi.org/10.5194/piahs-385-65-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/piahs-385-65-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
The manuscript describes an application of PArameter Set Shuffling (PASS) approach in the Alpine region. A machine learning decision-tree algorithm is applied for the regional calibration of a conceptual semi-distributed hydrological model. Regional model efficiencies don't decrease significantly when moving in space from catchments used for the regional calibration (training) to catchments used for the procedure validation (test) and, in time, from the calibration to the verification period.
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.
Giulia Blandini, Francesco Avanzi, Simone Gabellani, Denise Ponziani, Hervé Stevenin, Sara Ratto, Luca Ferraris, and Alberto Viglione
The Cryosphere, 17, 5317–5333, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-17-5317-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-17-5317-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Automatic snow depth data are a valuable source of information for hydrologists, but they also tend to be noisy. To maximize the value of these measurements for real-world applications, we developed an automatic procedure to differentiate snow cover from grass or bare ground data, as well as to detect random errors. This procedure can enhance snow data quality, thus providing more reliable data for snow models.
Bas J. M. Wullems, Claudia C. Brauer, Fedor Baart, and Albrecht H. Weerts
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 27, 3823–3850, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-3823-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-3823-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
In deltas, saltwater sometimes intrudes far inland and causes problems with freshwater availability. We created a model to forecast salt concentrations at a critical location in the Rhine–Meuse delta in the Netherlands. It requires a rather small number of data to make a prediction and runs fast. It predicts the occurrence of salt concentration peaks well but underestimates the highest peaks. Its speed gives water managers more time to reduce the problems caused by salt intrusion.
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.
Trevor Page, Paul Smith, Keith Beven, Francesca Pianosi, Fanny Sarrazin, Susana Almeida, Liz Holcombe, Jim Freer, Nick Chappell, and Thorsten Wagener
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 27, 2523–2534, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-2523-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-2523-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
This publication provides an introduction to the CREDIBLE Uncertainty Estimation (CURE) toolbox. CURE offers workflows for a variety of uncertainty estimation methods. One of its most important features is the requirement that all of the assumptions on which a workflow analysis depends be defined. This facilitates communication with potential users of an analysis. An audit trail log is produced automatically from a workflow for future reference.
Heidi Kreibich, Kai Schröter, Giuliano Di Baldassarre, Anne F. Van Loon, Maurizio Mazzoleni, Guta Wakbulcho Abeshu, Svetlana Agafonova, Amir AghaKouchak, Hafzullah Aksoy, Camila Alvarez-Garreton, Blanca Aznar, Laila Balkhi, Marlies H. Barendrecht, Sylvain Biancamaria, Liduin Bos-Burgering, Chris Bradley, Yus Budiyono, Wouter Buytaert, Lucinda Capewell, Hayley Carlson, Yonca Cavus, Anaïs Couasnon, Gemma Coxon, Ioannis Daliakopoulos, Marleen C. de Ruiter, Claire Delus, Mathilde Erfurt, Giuseppe Esposito, Didier François, Frédéric Frappart, Jim Freer, Natalia Frolova, Animesh K. Gain, Manolis Grillakis, Jordi Oriol Grima, Diego A. Guzmán, Laurie S. Huning, Monica Ionita, Maxim Kharlamov, Dao Nguyen Khoi, Natalie Kieboom, Maria Kireeva, Aristeidis Koutroulis, Waldo Lavado-Casimiro, Hong-Yi Li, Maria Carmen LLasat, David Macdonald, Johanna Mård, Hannah Mathew-Richards, Andrew McKenzie, Alfonso Mejia, Eduardo Mario Mendiondo, Marjolein Mens, Shifteh Mobini, Guilherme Samprogna Mohor, Viorica Nagavciuc, Thanh Ngo-Duc, Huynh Thi Thao Nguyen, Pham Thi Thao Nhi, Olga Petrucci, Nguyen Hong Quan, Pere Quintana-Seguí, Saman Razavi, Elena Ridolfi, Jannik Riegel, Md Shibly Sadik, Nivedita Sairam, Elisa Savelli, Alexey Sazonov, Sanjib Sharma, Johanna Sörensen, Felipe Augusto Arguello Souza, Kerstin Stahl, Max Steinhausen, Michael Stoelzle, Wiwiana Szalińska, Qiuhong Tang, Fuqiang Tian, Tamara Tokarczyk, Carolina Tovar, Thi Van Thu Tran, Marjolein H. J. van Huijgevoort, Michelle T. H. van Vliet, Sergiy Vorogushyn, Thorsten Wagener, Yueling Wang, Doris E. Wendt, Elliot Wickham, Long Yang, Mauricio Zambrano-Bigiarini, and Philip J. Ward
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 15, 2009–2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-2009-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-2009-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
As the adverse impacts of hydrological extremes increase in many regions of the world, a better understanding of the drivers of changes in risk and impacts is essential for effective flood and drought risk management. We present a dataset containing data of paired events, i.e. two floods or two droughts that occurred in the same area. The dataset enables comparative analyses and allows detailed context-specific assessments. Additionally, it supports the testing of socio-hydrological models.
Tahmina Yasmin, Kieran Khamis, Anthony Ross, Subir Sen, Anita Sharma, Debashish Sen, Sumit Sen, Wouter Buytaert, and David M. Hannah
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 23, 667–674, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-23-667-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-23-667-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Floods continue to be a wicked problem that require developing early warning systems with plausible assumptions of risk behaviour, with more targeted conversations with the community at risk. Through this paper we advocate the use of a SMART approach to encourage bottom-up initiatives to develop inclusive and purposeful early warning systems that benefit the community at risk by engaging them at every step of the way along with including other stakeholders at multiple scales of operations.
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.
Antonio Capponi, Natalie J. Harvey, Helen F. Dacre, Keith Beven, Cameron Saint, Cathie Wells, and Mike R. James
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 6115–6134, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-6115-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-6115-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Forecasts of the dispersal of volcanic ash in the atmosphere are hampered by uncertainties in parameters describing the characteristics of volcanic plumes. Uncertainty quantification is vital for making robust flight-planning decisions. We present a method using satellite data to refine a series of volcanic ash dispersion forecasts and quantify these uncertainties. We show how we can improve forecast accuracy and potentially reduce the regions of high risk of volcanic ash relevant to aviation.
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.
Rui Tong, Juraj Parajka, Borbála Széles, Isabella Greimeister-Pfeil, Mariette Vreugdenhil, Jürgen Komma, Peter Valent, and Günter Blöschl
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 1779–1799, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-1779-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-1779-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
The role and impact of using additional data (other than runoff) for the prediction of daily hydrographs in ungauged basins are not well understood. In this study, we assessed the model performance in terms of runoff, soil moisture, and snow cover predictions with the existing regionalization approaches. Results show that the best transfer methods are the similarity and the kriging approaches. The performance of the transfer methods differs between lowland and alpine catchments.
Veerle Vanacker, Armando Molina, Miluska A. Rosas, Vivien Bonnesoeur, Francisco Román-Dañobeytia, Boris F. Ochoa-Tocachi, and Wouter Buytaert
SOIL, 8, 133–147, https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-8-133-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-8-133-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
The Andes region is prone to natural hazards due to its steep topography and climatic variability. Anthropogenic activities further exacerbate environmental hazards and risks. This systematic review synthesizes the knowledge on the effectiveness of nature-based solutions. Conservation of natural vegetation and implementation of soil and water conservation measures had significant and positive effects on soil erosion mitigation and topsoil organic carbon concentrations.
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.
David Lun, Alberto Viglione, Miriam Bertola, Jürgen Komma, Juraj Parajka, Peter Valent, and Günter Blöschl
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 5535–5560, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-5535-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-5535-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We investigate statistical properties of observed flood series on a European scale. There are pronounced regional patterns, for instance: regions with strong Atlantic influence show less year-to-year variability in the magnitude of observed floods when compared with more arid regions of Europe. The hydrological controls on the patterns are quantified and discussed. On the European scale, climate seems to be the dominant driver for the observed patterns.
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.
Marko Kallio, Joseph H. A. Guillaume, Vili Virkki, Matti Kummu, and Kirsi Virrantaus
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 5155–5181, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-5155-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-5155-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Different runoff and streamflow products are freely available but may come with unsuitable spatial units. On the other hand, starting a new modelling exercise may require considerable resources. Hydrostreamer improves the usability of existing runoff products, allowing runoff and streamflow estimates at the desired spatial units with minimal data requirements and intuitive workflow. The case study shows that Hydrostreamer performs well compared to benchmark products and observation data.
Ruben Imhoff, Claudia Brauer, Klaas-Jan van Heeringen, Hidde Leijnse, Aart Overeem, Albrecht Weerts, and Remko Uijlenhoet
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 4061–4080, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-4061-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-4061-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Significant biases in real-time radar rainfall products limit the use for hydrometeorological forecasting. We introduce CARROTS (Climatology-based Adjustments for Radar Rainfall in an OperaTional Setting), a set of fixed bias reduction factors to correct radar rainfall products and to benchmark other correction algorithms. When tested for 12 Dutch basins, estimated rainfall and simulated discharges with CARROTS generally outperform those using the operational mean field bias adjustments.
Rui Tong, Juraj Parajka, Andreas Salentinig, Isabella Pfeil, Jürgen Komma, Borbála Széles, Martin Kubáň, Peter Valent, Mariette Vreugdenhil, Wolfgang Wagner, and Günter Blöschl
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 1389–1410, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-1389-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-1389-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We used a new and experimental version of the Advanced Scatterometer (ASCAT) soil water index data set and Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) C6 snow cover products for multiple objective calibrations of the TUWmodel in 213 catchments of Austria. Combined calibration to runoff, satellite soil moisture, and snow cover improves runoff (40 % catchments), soil moisture (80 % catchments), and snow (~ 100 % catchments) simulation compared to traditional calibration to runoff only.
Miriam Bertola, Alberto Viglione, Sergiy Vorogushyn, David Lun, Bruno Merz, and Günter Blöschl
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 1347–1364, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-1347-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-1347-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We estimate the contribution of extreme precipitation, antecedent soil moisture and snowmelt to changes in small and large floods across Europe.
In northwestern and eastern Europe, changes in small and large floods are driven mainly by one single driver (i.e. extreme precipitation and snowmelt, respectively). In southern Europe both antecedent soil moisture and extreme precipitation significantly contribute to flood changes, and their relative importance depends on flood magnitude.
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.
Manon Cassagnole, Maria-Helena Ramos, Ioanna Zalachori, Guillaume Thirel, Rémy Garçon, Joël Gailhard, and Thomas Ouillon
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 1033–1052, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-1033-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-1033-2021, 2021
Keith Beven
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 851–866, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-851-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-851-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Inspired by a quotation from Howard Cook in 1946, this paper traces the evolution of the infiltration theory of runoff from the work of Robert Horton and LeRoy Sherman in the 1930s to the early digital computer models of the 1970s and 1980s. Reconsideration of the perceptual model for many catchments, partly as a result of the greater appreciation of the contribution of subsurface flows to the hydrograph indicated by tracer studies, suggests a reconsideration of hydrological nomenclature.
Keith J. Beven, Mike J. Kirkby, Jim E. Freer, and Rob Lamb
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 527–549, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-527-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-527-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
The theory that forms the basis of TOPMODEL was first outlined by Mike Kirkby some 45 years ago. This paper recalls some of the early developments: the rejection of the first journal paper, the early days of digital terrain analysis, model calibration and validation, the various criticisms of the simplifying assumptions, and the relaxation of those assumptions in the dynamic forms of TOPMODEL, and it considers what we might do now with the benefit of hindsight.
Mattia Neri, Juraj Parajka, and Elena Toth
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 24, 5149–5171, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-5149-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-5149-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
One of the most informative ways to gain information on ungauged river sections is through the implementation of a rainfall-runoff model, exploiting the information collected in gauged catchments in the study area. This study analyses how the performances of different model regionalisation approaches are influenced by the informative content of the available regional data set, in order to identify the methods that are more suitable for the data availability in the region.
Pierre Nicolle, François Besson, Olivier Delaigue, Pierre Etchevers, Didier François, Matthieu Le Lay, Charles Perrin, Fabienne Rousset, Dominique Thiéry, François Tilmant, Claire Magand, Timothée Leurent, and Élise Jacob
Proc. IAHS, 383, 381–389, https://doi.org/10.5194/piahs-383-381-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/piahs-383-381-2020, 2020
Cited articles
Anderson, E. A.: A point energy and mass balance model of a snow cover,
vol. 19, US Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, National Weather Service, Office of Hydrology, Silver Spring, US, 1976. a
Andréassian, V., Perrin, C., Berthet, L., Le Moine, N., Lerat, J., Loumagne, C., Oudin, L., Mathevet, T., Ramos, M.-H., and Valéry, A.: HESS Opinions ”Crash tests for a standardized evaluation of hydrological models”, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 13, 1757–1764, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-13-1757-2009, 2009. a
Andrews, F. T., Croke, B. F. W., and Jakeman, A. J.: An open software
environment for hydrological model assessment and development, Environ. Modell. Softw., 26, 1171–1185, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2011.04.006,
2011. a, b
Arabzadeh, R. and Araghinejad, S.: RHMS: Hydrologic Modelling System for R
Users, available at: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=RHMS (last access: 6 July 2021), R package
version 1.6, 2019. a
Astagneau, P., Thirel, G., and Delaigue, O.: Hydrology modelling R packages: codes for simulating streamflow using one parameter set, https://doi.org/10.15454/3PPKCL, 2020. a, b, c
Backus, J. W., Beeber, R. J., Best, S., Goldberg, R., Haibt, L. M., Herrick,
H. L., Nelson, R. A., Sayre, D., Sheridan, P. B., Stern, H., Ziller, I.,
Hughes, R. A., and Nutt, R.: The FORTRAN Automatic Coding System, in: Papers
Presented at the 26–28 February 1957 Western Joint Computer Conference:
Techniques for Reliability, IRE-AIEE-ACM '57 (Western), 188–198, ACM,
New York, NY, USA, https://doi.org/10.1145/1455567.1455599, 1957. a
Becker, R. A., Chambers, J. M., and Wilks, A. R.: The New S Language: A
Programming Environment for Data Analysis and Graphics, Wadsworth and
Brooks/Cole Advanced Books & Software, Monterey, USA, 1988. a
Bergström, S. and Lindström, G.: Interpretation of runoff processes in
hydrological modelling–experience from the HBV approach, Hydrol. Process., 29, 3535–3545, https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.10510, 2015. a, b
Beven, K. J.: TOPMODEL: a critique, Hydrol. Process., 11, 1069–1085,
https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1085(199707)11:9<1069::AID-HYP545>3.0.CO;2-O, 1997. a, b
Beven, K. J.: A manifesto for the equifinality thesis, J. Hydrol.,
320, 18–36, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2005.07.007, 2006. a
Beven, K. J.: On hypothesis testing in hydrology: Why falsification of models
is still a really good idea, WIREs Water, 5, e1278, https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1278,
2018. a, b, c
Beven, K. J.: Towards a methodology for testing models as hypotheses in the
inexact sciences, P. Roy. Soc. A-Math. Phy., 475, 20180862, https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.2018.0862,
2019. a, b, c
Beven, K. J. and Binley, A.: The future of distributed models: Model
calibration and uncertainty prediction, Hydrol. Process., 6, 279–298,
https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.3360060305, 1992. a
Beven, K. J. and Chappell, N. A.: Perceptual perplexity and parameter
parsimony, WIREs Water, 8, e1530, https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1530, 2021. a
Beven, K. J. and Kirby, M. J.: A physically based, variable contributing area
model of basin hydrology, Hydrol. Sci. B., 24, 43–69,
https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667909491834, 1979. a, b, c, d
Beven, K. J., Kirkby, M. J., Freer, J. E., and Lamb, R.: A history of TOPMODEL, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 527–549, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-527-2021, 2021. a
Blair, G. S., Beven, K. J., Lamb, R., Bassett, R., Cauwenberghs, K., Hankin,
B., Dean, G., Hunter, N., Edwards, L., Nundloll, V., Samreen, F., Simm, W.,
and Towe, R.: Models of everywhere revisited: A technological perspective,
Environ. Modell. Softw., 122, 104521,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2019.104521, 2019. a
Blöschl, G.: Debates–Hypothesis testing in hydrology: Introduction,
Water Resour. Res., 53, 1767–1769, https://doi.org/10.1002/2017WR020584, 2017. a
Boughton, W.: The Australian water balance model, Environ. Modell. Softw., 19, 943–956, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2003.10.007, 2004. a
Box, G. E., Jenkins, G. M., Reinsel, G. C., and Ljung, G. M.: Time series
analysis: forecasting and control, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, USA, 2015. a
Brauer, C. C., Teuling, A. J., Torfs, P. J. J. F., and Uijlenhoet, R.: The Wageningen Lowland Runoff Simulator (WALRUS): a lumped rainfall–runoff model for catchments with shallow groundwater, Geosci. Model Dev., 7, 2313–2332, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-7-2313-2014, 2014a. a, b, c
Brauer, C. C., Torfs, P. J. J. F., Teuling, A. J., and Uijlenhoet, R.: The Wageningen Lowland Runoff Simulator (WALRUS): application to the Hupsel Brook catchment and the Cabauw polder, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 18, 4007–4028, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-18-4007-2014, 2014b. a, b
Buytaert, W.: topmodel: Implementation of the Hydrological Model TOPMODEL in R,
available at: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=topmodel (last access: 6 July 2021), R package
version 0.7.3, 2018. a
Calder, I., Harding, R., and Rosier, P.: An objective assessment of
soil-moisture deficit models, J. Hydrol., 60, 329–355,
https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1694(83)90030-6, 1983. a, b
Ceola, S., Arheimer, B., Baratti, E., Blöschl, G., Capell, R., Castellarin, A., Freer, J., Han, D., Hrachowitz, M., Hundecha, Y., Hutton, C., Lindström, G., Montanari, A., Nijzink, R., Parajka, J., Toth, E., Viglione, A., and Wagener, T.: Virtual laboratories: new opportunities for collaborative water science, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 19, 2101–2117, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-19-2101-2015, 2015. a, b
Chang, W., Cheng, J., Allaire, J., Xie, Y., and McPherson, J.: shiny: Web
Application Framework for R,
available at: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=shiny (last access: 6 July 2021), R package version
1.4.0, 2019. a
Chen, C., Garibaldi, J., and Razak, T.: FuzzyR: Fuzzy Logic Toolkit for R,
available at: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=FuzzyR (last access: 6 July 2021), R package
version 2.3, 2019. a
Clark, M. P. and Kavetski, D.: Ancient numerical daemons of conceptual
hydrological modeling: 1. Fidelity and efficiency of time stepping schemes,
Water Resour. Res., 46, W10510, https://doi.org/10.1029/2009WR008894, 2010. a
Clark, M. P., Slater, A. G., Rupp, D. E., Woods, R. A., Vrugt, J. A., Gupta,
H. V., Wagener, T., and Hay, L. E.: Framework for Understanding Structural
Errors (FUSE): A modular framework to diagnose differences between
hydrological models, Water Resour. Res., 44, W00B02, https://doi.org/10.1029/2007WR006735, 2008. a, b
Clark, M. P., Bierkens, M. F. P., Samaniego, L., Woods, R. A., Uijlenhoet, R., Bennett, K. E., Pauwels, V. R. N., Cai, X., Wood, A. W., and Peters-Lidard, C. D.: The evolution of process-based hydrologic models: historical challenges and the collective quest for physical realism, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 21, 3427–3440, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-3427-2017, 2017. a, b
Coron, L., Thirel, G., Delaigue, O., Perrin, C., and Andréassian, V.: The
Suite of Lumped GR Hydrological Models in an R Package,
Environ. Modell. Softw., 94, 166–171,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2017.05.002, 2017. a, b
Coron, L., Delaigue, O., Thirel, G., Perrin, C., and Michel, C.: airGR: Suite
of GR Hydrological Models for Precipitation-Runoff Modelling,
https://doi.org/10.15454/EX11NA, R package version 1.4.3.65, 2020. a
Croke, B. F. W. and Jakeman, A. J.: A catchment moisture deficit module for the
IHACRES rainfall-runoff model, Environ. Modell. Softw., 19,
1–5, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2003.09.001, 2004. a
Dal Molin, M., Fenicia, F., and Kavetski, D.: SuperflexPy: the flexible
language of hydrological modelling,
available at: https://superflexpy.readthedocs.io/en/latest/index.html (last access: 20 September 2020),
version 1.2.0, 2020. a
Danish Hydraulic Institute: MIKE SHE, Volume 2, Reference guide,
available at: https://manuals.mikepoweredbydhi.help/2017/Water_Resources/MIKE_SHE_Printed_V2.pdf (last access: 20 September 2020),
DHI, the Netherlands, 2017. a
de Boer-Euser, T., Bouaziz, L., De Niel, J., Brauer, C., Dewals, B., Drogue, G., Fenicia, F., Grelier, B., Nossent, J., Pereira, F., Savenije, H., Thirel, G., and Willems, P.: Looking beyond general metrics for model comparison – lessons from an international model intercomparison study, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 21, 423–440, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-423-2017, 2017. a, b
Delaigue, O., Coron, L., and Brigode, P.: airGRteaching: Teaching
Hydrological Modelling with GR (Shiny Interface Included),
https://doi.org/10.15454/W0SSKT, R package version 0.2.8.69., 2020a. a, b
Delaigue, O., Génot, B., Lebecherel, L., Brigode, P., and Bourgin, P.:
Database of watershed-scale hydroclimatic observations in France,
available at: https://webgr.inrae.fr/base-de-donnees (last access: 20 September 2020), INRAE, HYCAR
Research Unit, Hydrology group, Antony, 2020b. a
Ficchì, A., Perrin, C., and Andréassian, V.: Hydrological modelling at
multiple sub-daily time steps: Model improvement via flux-matching, J. Hydrol., 575, 1308–1327, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2019.05.084, 2019. a
Freer, J. E., McMillan, H., McDonnell, J. J., and Beven, K. J.: Constraining
dynamic TOPMODEL responses for imprecise water table information using fuzzy
rule based performance measures, J. Hydrol., 291, 254–277,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2003.12.037, 2004. a
Fuka, D. R., Walter, M. T., Steenhuis, T. S., and Easton, Z. M.: SWATmodel: A
multi-OS implementation of the TAMU SWAT model,
available at: https://cran.r-project.org/src/contrib/Archive/SWATmodel/ (last access: 6 July 2021), R package
version 0.5.9, 2014. a
Georgakakos, K. P.: Analytical results for operational flash flood guidance,
J. Hydrol., 317, 81–103, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2005.05.009,
2006. a
Guillaume, J. H., Jakeman, J. D., Marsili-Libelli, S., Asher, M., Brunner, P.,
Croke, B., Hill, M. C., Jakeman, A. J., Keesman, K. J., Razavi, S., and
Stigter, J. D.: Introductory overview of identifiability analysis: A guide to
evaluating whether you have the right type of data for your modeling purpose,
Environ. Modell. Softw., 119, 418–432,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2019.07.007, 2019. a
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. a
Haghnegahdar, A., Razavi, S., Yassin, F., and Wheater, H.: Multicriteria
sensitivity analysis as a diagnostic tool for understanding model behaviour
and characterizing model uncertainty, Hydrol. Process., 31, 4462–4476,
https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.11358, 2017. a
Hamon, W.: Estimating potential evapotranspiration, Master's thesis,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, US, 82 pp., 1960. a
Hrachowitz, M. and Clark, M. P.: HESS Opinions: The complementary merits of competing modelling philosophies in hydrology, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 21, 3953–3973, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-3953-2017, 2017. a
Hutton, C., Wagener, T., Freer, J., Han, D., Duffy, C., and Arheimer, B.: Most
computational hydrology is not reproducible, so is it really science?, Water Resour. Res., 52, 7548–7555, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016WR019285, 2016. a
IGN: BD ALTI: modèle numérique de terrain maillé qui décrit le territoire
français à moyenne échelle,
available at: https://professionnels.ign.fr/bdalti (last access: 6 July 2021), version 1.0, 2013. a
Jakeman, A. J. and Hornberger, G. M.: How much complexity is warranted in a
rainfall-runoff model?, Water Resour. Res., 29, 2637–2649,
https://doi.org/10.1029/93WR00877, 1993. a, b
Jakeman, A. J., Littlewood, I. G., and Whitehead, P. G.: Computation of the
instantaneous unit hydrograph and identifiable component flows with
application to two small upland catchments, J. Hydrol., 117,
275–300, https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1694(90)90097-H, 1990. a, b
Jakeman, A. J., Letcher, R. A., and Norton, J. P.: Ten iterative steps in
development and evaluation of environmental models, Environ. Modell. Softw., 21, 602–614, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2006.01.004, 2006. a
Jansson, P., Hock, R., and Schneider, T.: The concept of glacier storage: a
review, J. Hydrol., 282, 116–129,
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(03)00258-0, 2003. a
Kavetski, D. and Clark, M. P.: Ancient numerical daemons of conceptual
hydrological modeling: 2. Impact of time stepping schemes on model analysis
and prediction, Water Resour. Res., 46, W10511, https://doi.org/10.1029/2009WR008896,
2010. a
Kernighan, B. W. and Ritchie, D. M.: The C Programming Language, Prentice-Hall,
Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 1978. a
Kitanidis, P. K. and Bras, R. L.: Real-time forecasting with a conceptual
hydrologic model: 2. Applications and results, Water Resour. Res., 16,
1034–1044, https://doi.org/10.1029/WR016i006p01034, 1980. a
Kling, H., Fuchs, M., and Paulin, M.: Runoff conditions in the upper Danube
basin under an ensemble of climate change scenarios, J. Hydrol.,
424–425, 264–277, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.01.011, 2012. a
Knoben, W. J. M., Freer, J. E., Fowler, K. J. A., Peel, M. C., and Woods, R. A.: Modular Assessment of Rainfall–Runoff Models Toolbox (MARRMoT) v1.2: an open-source, extendable framework providing implementations of 46 conceptual hydrologic models as continuous state-space formulations, Geosci. Model Dev., 12, 2463–2480, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-2463-2019, 2019. a, b, c
Koutsoyiannis, D. and Montanari, A.: Negligent killing of scientific concepts:
the stationarity case, Hydrolog. Sci. J., 60, 1174–1183,
https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2014.959959, 2015. a
Kustas, W. P., Rango, A., and Uijlenhoet, R.: A simple energy budget algorithm
for the snowmelt runoff model, Water Resour. Res., 30, 1515–1527,
1994. a
Le Moine, N.: Le bassin versant de surface vu par le souterrain: une voie
d'amélioration des performances et du réalisme des modèles
pluie-débit ?, Ph.D. thesis, University of Pierre and Marie Curie
(Paris), CEMAGREF (Antony), France, 2008. a
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, 25–32,
available at: http://hydro.eaufrance.fr/ (last access: 20 September 2020), 2014. a
Lindström, G., Johansson, B., Persson, M., Gardelin, M., and Bergström, S.:
Development and test of the distributed HBV-96 hydrological model, J. Hydrol., 201, 272–288, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(97)00041-3, 1997. a
Littlewood, I. G.: Improved unit hydrograph characterisation of the daily flow regime (including low flows) for the River Teifi, Wales: towards better rainfall-streamflow models for regionalisation, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 6, 899–911, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-6-899-2002, 2002. a
Lohmann, D., Nolte-Holube, R., and Raschke, E.: A large-scale horizontal
routing model to be coupled to land surface parametrization schemes, Tellus
A, 48, 708–721, https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0870.1996.t01-3-00009.x, 1996. a, b, c, d
Mathevet, T.: Quels modèles pluie-débit globaux pour le pas de temps horaire?
Développement empirique et comparaison de modèles sur un large échantillon
de bassins versants, Ph.D. thesis, CEMAGREF, Antony, ENGREF, Paris, France,
463 pp., 2005. a
Melsen, L. A., Torfs, P. J. J. F., Uijlenhoet, R., and Teuling, A. J.: Comment
on “Most computational hydrology is not reproducible, so is it really
science?” by Christopher Hutton et al., Water Resour. Res., 53,
2568–2569, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016WR020208, 2017. a
Mersmann, O.: microbenchmark: Accurate Timing Functions,
available at: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=microbenchmark (last access: 6 July 2021), R
package version 1.4-7, 2019. a
Michel, C.: Que peut-on faire en hydrologie avec modèle conceptuel à un
seul paramètre ?, La Houille Blanche, 39–44,
https://doi.org/10.1051/lhb/1983004, 1983. a
Michel, C.: Hydrologie appliquée aux petits bassins ruraux, Hydrology
handbook, CEMAGREF, Antony, France, 1991. a
Mouelhi, S.: Vers une chaîne cohérente de modèles pluie-débit
conceptuels globaux aux pas de temps pluriannuel, annuel, mensuel et
journalier, Ph.D. thesis, ENGREF, Paris, CEMAGREF, Antony, France, 2003. a
Mouelhi, S., Michel, C., Perrin, C., and Andréassian, V.: Stepwise development
of a two-parameter monthly water balance model, J. Hydrol., 318,
200–214, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2005.06.014, 2006. a
Nash, J. and Sutcliffe, J.: 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. a
Nicolle, P., Pushpalatha, R., Perrin, C., François, D., Thiéry, D., Mathevet, T., Le Lay, M., Besson, F., Soubeyroux, J.-M., Viel, C., Regimbeau, F., Andréassian, V., Maugis, P., Augeard, B., and Morice, E.: Benchmarking hydrological models for low-flow simulation and forecasting on French catchments, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 18, 2829–2857, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-18-2829-2014, 2014. a
Oudin, L., Hervieu, F., Michel, C., Perrin, C., Andréassian, V., Anctil, F.,
and Loumagne, C.: Which potential evapotranspiration input for a lumped
rainfall–runoff model?: Part 2 – Towards a simple and efficient potential
evapotranspiration model for rainfall–runoff modelling, J. Hydrol., 303, 290–306, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2004.08.026, 2005. a, b
Parajka, J., Merz, R., and Blöschl, G.: Uncertainty and multiple objective
calibration in regional water balance modelling: case study in 320 Austrian
catchments, Hydrol. Process., 21, 435–446, https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.6253,
2007. a, b, c, d
Patil, S. and Stieglitz, M.: Modelling daily streamflow at ungauged catchments:
what information is necessary?, Hydrol. Process., 28, 1159–1169,
https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.9660, 2014. a
Perrin, C., Michel, C., and Andréassian, V.: Improvement of a parsimonious
model for streamflow simulation, J. Hydrol., 279, 275–289,
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(03)00225-7, 2003. a, b, c
Pushpalatha, R., Perrin, C., Le Moine, N., Mathevet, T., and Andréassian, V.:
A downward structural sensitivity analysis of hydrological models to improve
low-flow simulation, J. Hydrol., 411, 66–76,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2011.09.034, 2011. a, b
Quinn, P., Beven, K. J., Chevallier, P., and Planchon, O.: The prediction of
hillslope flow paths for distributed hydrological modelling using digital
terrain models, Hydrol. Process., 5, 59–79,
https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.3360050106, 1991. a
R Core Team: R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing, R
Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria,
available at: https://www.R-project.org/ (last access: 20 September 2020), 2020a. a
R Core Team: Writing R extensions, R Foundation for Statistical Computing,
Vienna, Austria,
available at: https://cran.r-project.org/doc/manuals/r-release/R-exts.pdf (last access: 20 September 2020),
2020b. a
Rozalis, S., Morin, E., Yair, Y., and Price, C.: Flash flood prediction using
an uncalibrated hydrological model and radar rainfall data in a Mediterranean
watershed under changing hydrological conditions, J. Hydrol., 394,
245–255, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2010.03.021, 2010. a
Santos, L., Thirel, G., and Perrin, C.: Technical note: Pitfalls in using log-transformed flows within the KGE criterion, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 22, 4583–4591, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-4583-2018, 2018a. a
Santos, L., Thirel, G., and Perrin, C.: Continuous state-space representation of a bucket-type rainfall-runoff model: a case study with the GR4 model using state-space GR4 (version 1.0), Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 1591–1605, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-1591-2018, 2018b. a
Schmidt-Walter, P., Trotsiuk, V., Meusburger, K., Zacios, M., and Meesenburg,
H.: Advancing simulations of water fluxes, soil moisture and drought stress
by using the LWF-Brook90 hydrological model in R, Agr. Forest Meteorol., 291, 108023, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2020.108023, 2020. a
Seibert, J.: Estimation of parameter uncertainty in the HBV model: Paper
presented at the Nordic Hydrological Conference, Akureyri, Iceland, August 1996, Hydrol. Res., 28, 247–262, 1997. a
Shin, M. J. and Kim, C. S.: Assessment of the suitability of rainfall–runoff
models by coupling performance statistics and sensitivity analysis,
Hydrol. Res., 48, 1192–1213, https://doi.org/10.2166/nh.2016.129, 2016. a
Silverman, B. W.: Density Estimation for Statistics and Data Analysis, Chapman
and Hall, London, GB, 1986. a
Singh, S. K., Ibbitt, R., Srinivasan, M., and Shankar, U.: Inter-comparison of
experimental catchment data and hydrological modelling, J. Hydrol.,
550, 1–11, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2017.04.049, 2017. a, b
Slater, L. J., Thirel, G., Harrigan, S., Delaigue, O., Hurley, A., Khouakhi, A., Prosdocimi, I., Vitolo, C., and Smith, K.: Using R in hydrology: a review of recent developments and future directions, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 23, 2939–2963, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-23-2939-2019, 2019. a, b, c, d, e, f, g
Sleziak, P.: Vỳvoj webovej aplikácie pre potreby hydrologického
modelovania, Master's thesis, Vysoká škola
báňská-Technická univerzita Ostrava, Czech Republic, 68 pp., 2019. a
Soetaert, K. and Petzoldt, T.: Inverse Modelling, Sensitivity and Monte Carlo
Analysis in R Using Package FME, J. Stat. Softw., 33,
1–28, https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v033.i03, 2010. a
Souza, R.: Ecohydmod: Ecohydrological Modelling,
available at: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=Ecohydmod (last access: 6 July 2021), R package
version 1.0.0, 2017. a
Staudinger, M., Stahl, K., Seibert, J., Clark, M. P., and Tallaksen, L. M.: Comparison of hydrological model structures based on recession and low flow simulations, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 15, 3447–3459, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-15-3447-2011, 2011. a
Storn, R. and Price, K.: Differential Evolution – A Simple and Efficient
Heuristic for global Optimization over Continuous Spaces, J. Global Optim., 11, 341–359, https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008202821328, 1997. a
Stroustrup, B.: The C++ programming language: reference manual, Tech. rep.,
Bell Lab., US, 1984. a
Taner, M. U.: sacsmaR: SAC-SMA Hydrology Model, R package version 0.0.1, available at: https://github.com/tanerumit/sacsmaR (last access: 6 July 2021),
2019. a
Todini, E.: History and perspectives of hydrological catchment modelling,
Hydrol. Res., 42, 73–85, https://doi.org/10.2166/nh.2011.096, 2011. a
Valéry, A., Andréassian, V., and Perrin, C.: “As simple as possible but not
simpler”: What is useful in a temperature-based snow-accounting routine?
Part 2 – Sensitivity analysis of the CemaNeige snow accounting routine on
380 catchments, J. Hydrol., 517, 1176–1187,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.04.058, 2014. a, b
Venables, B., Hornik, K., and Maechler, M.: polynom: A Collection of Functions
to Implement a Class for Univariate Polynomial Manipulations,
available at: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=polynom (last access: 6 July 2021), R package
version 1.4-0, 2019. a
Vidal, J.-P., Martin, E., Franchistéguy, L., Baillon, M., and Soubeyroux,
J.-M.: A 50-year high-resolution atmospheric reanalysis over France with the
Safran system, Int. J. Climatol., 30, 1627–1644,
https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.2003, 2010. a
Viglione, A. and Parajka, J.: TUWmodel: Lumped Hydrological Model for Education
Purposes, available at: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=TUWmodel (last access: 6 July 2021), R
package version 1.1-1, 2020. a
Vitolo, C., Fry, M., and Buytaert, W.: rnrfa: an R package to retrieve,
filter and visualize data from the UK National River Flow Archive, R J., 8, 102–116,
2016a. a
Vitolo, C., Wells, P., Dobias, M., and Buytaert, W.: fuse: An R
package for ensemble Hydrological Modelling, The Journal of Open Source
Software, 1, 52, https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.00052, 2016b. a
Vitolo, C., Fry, M., Buytaert, W., Spencer, M., and Gauster, T.:
rnrfa: an R package to retrieve, filter and visualize data from the UK
National River Flow Archive, R package version 2.0.3, available at: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/rnrfa/index.html (last access: 6 July 2021), 2018. a
Vrugt, J. A. and Beven, K. J.: Embracing equifinality with efficiency: Limits
of Acceptability sampling using the DREAM(LOA) algorithm, J. Hydrol., 559, 954–971, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2018.02.026, 2018. a
Wagener, T., Sivapalan, M., Troch, P. A., McGlynn, B. L., Harman, C. J., Gupta,
H. V., Kumar, P., Rao, P. S. C., Basu, N. B., and Wilson, J. S.: The future
of hydrology: An evolving science for a changing world, Water Resour. Res., 46, W05301, https://doi.org/10.1029/2009WR008906, 2010. a
Wrede, S., Fenicia, F., Martínez-Carreras, N., Juilleret, J., Hissler, C.,
Krein, A., Savenije, H. H. G., Uhlenbrook, S., Kavetski, D., and Pfister, L.:
Towards more systematic perceptual model development: a case study using 3
Luxembourgish catchments, Hydrol. Process., 29, 2731–2750,
https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.10393, 2015. a, b, c
Zambrano-Bigiarini, M.: hydroGOF: Goodness-of-fit functions for comparison of
simulated and observed hydrological time series, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.839854,
R package version 0.4-0, 2020. a
Zeileis, A. and Grothendieck, G.: zoo: S3 Infrastructure for Regular and
Irregular Time Series, J. Stat. Softw., 14, 1–27,
https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v014.i06, 2005. a
Zipper, S., Albers, S., and Prosdocimi, I.: CRAN Task View: Hydrological Data
and Modeling, available at: https://cran.r-project.org/view=Hydrology (last access: 6 July 2021), 2019. a
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.
The R programming language has become an important tool for many applications in hydrology. In...
