Articles | Volume 26, issue 16
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-4407-2022
© Author(s) 2022. 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-26-4407-2022
© Author(s) 2022. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Research article
| 
29 Aug 2022
Research article |
| 29 Aug 2022
| 29 Aug 2022
Large-sample assessment of varying spatial resolution on the streamflow estimates of the wflow_sbm hydrological model
Water Resources Section, Faculty of Civil Engineering and Geosciences, Delft University of Technology, Stevinweg 1, 2628 CN Delft, the Netherlands
Rolf W. Hut
Water Resources Section, Faculty of Civil Engineering and Geosciences, Delft University of Technology, Stevinweg 1, 2628 CN Delft, the Netherlands
Nick C. van de Giesen
Water Resources Section, Faculty of Civil Engineering and Geosciences, Delft University of Technology, Stevinweg 1, 2628 CN Delft, the Netherlands
Niels Drost
The Netherlands eScience Center, Science Park 140, 1098 XG Amsterdam, the Netherlands
Willem J. van Verseveld
Catchment and Urban Hydrology, Department of Inland Water Systems, Deltares, P.O. Box 177, 2600MH Delft, the Netherlands
Albrecht H. Weerts
Operational Water Management, Department of Inland Water Systems, Deltares, P.O. Box 177, 2600MH Delft, the Netherlands
Hydrology and Quantitative Water Management Group, Wageningen University and Research, P.O. Box 47, 6700AA Wageningen, the Netherlands
Pieter Hazenberg
Applied Research Center, Florida International University, FL 33174 Miami, United States of America
Related authors
Sneha Chevuru, Rens L. P. H. van Beek, Michelle T. H. van Vliet, Jerom P. M. Aerts, and Marc F. P. Bierkens
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 29, 4219–4239, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-4219-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-4219-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
This study combines the global hydrological model
PCRaster Global Water Balancewith the
World Food Studiescrop model to analyze feedbacks between hydrology and crop growth. It quantifies one-way and two-way interactions, revealing patterns in crop yield and irrigation water use. Dynamic interactions enhance understanding of climate variability impacts on food production, highlighting the importance of two-way model coupling for accurate assessments.
Jerom P. M. Aerts, Jannis M. Hoch, Gemma Coxon, Nick C. van de Giesen, and Rolf W. Hut
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 5011–5030, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-5011-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-5011-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
For users of hydrological models, model suitability often hinges on how well simulated outputs match observed discharge. This study highlights the importance of including discharge observation uncertainty in hydrological model performance assessment. We highlight the need to account for this uncertainty in model comparisons and introduce a practical method suitable for any observational time series with available uncertainty estimates.
Pau Wiersma, Jerom Aerts, Harry Zekollari, Markus Hrachowitz, Niels Drost, Matthias Huss, Edwin H. Sutanudjaja, and Rolf Hut
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 5971–5986, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-5971-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-5971-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
We test whether coupling a global glacier model (GloGEM) with a global hydrological model (PCR-GLOBWB 2) leads to a more realistic glacier representation and to improved basin runoff simulations across 25 large-scale basins. The coupling does lead to improved glacier representation, mainly by accounting for glacier flow and net glacier mass loss, and to improved basin runoff simulations, mostly in strongly glacier-influenced basins, which is where the coupling has the most impact.
Rolf Hut, Niels Drost, Nick van de Giesen, Ben van Werkhoven, Banafsheh Abdollahi, Jerom Aerts, Thomas Albers, Fakhereh Alidoost, Bouwe Andela, Jaro Camphuijsen, Yifat Dzigan, Ronald van Haren, Eric Hutton, Peter Kalverla, Maarten van Meersbergen, Gijs van den Oord, Inti Pelupessy, Stef Smeets, Stefan Verhoeven, Martine de Vos, and Berend Weel
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 5371–5390, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-5371-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-5371-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
With the eWaterCycle platform, we are providing the hydrological community with a platform to conduct their research that is fully compatible with the principles of both open science and FAIR science. The eWatercyle platform gives easy access to well-known hydrological models, big datasets and example experiments. Using eWaterCycle hydrologists can easily compare the results from different models, couple models and do more complex hydrological computational research.
Jerom P. M. Aerts, Steffi Uhlemann-Elmer, Dirk Eilander, and Philip J. Ward
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 20, 3245–3260, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-20-3245-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-20-3245-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
We compare and analyse flood hazard maps from eight global flood models that represent the current state of the global flood modelling community. We apply our comparison to China as a case study, and for the first time, we include industry models, pluvial flooding, and flood protection standards. We find substantial variability between the flood hazard maps in the modelled inundated area and exposed gross domestic product (GDP) across multiple return periods and in expected annual exposed GDP.
Sneha Chevuru, Rens L. P. H. van Beek, Michelle T. H. van Vliet, Jerom P. M. Aerts, and Marc F. P. Bierkens
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 29, 4219–4239, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-4219-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-4219-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
This study combines the global hydrological model
PCRaster Global Water Balancewith the
World Food Studiescrop model to analyze feedbacks between hydrology and crop growth. It quantifies one-way and two-way interactions, revealing patterns in crop yield and irrigation water use. Dynamic interactions enhance understanding of climate variability impacts on food production, highlighting the importance of two-way model coupling for accurate assessments.
Luuk D. van der Valk, Oscar K. Hartogensis, Miriam Coenders-Gerrits, Rolf W. Hut, and Remko Uijlenhoet
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1128, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1128, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Commercial microwave links (CMLs), part of mobile phone networks, transmit comparable signals as instruments specially designed to estimate evaporation. Therefore, we investigate if CMLs could be used to estimate evaporation, even though they have not been designed for this purpose. Our results illustrate the potential of using CMLs to estimate evaporation, especially given their global coverage, but also outline some major drawbacks, often a consequence of unfavourable design choices for CMLs.
Constantijn G. B. ter Horst, Gijs A. Vis, Judith Jongen-Boekee, Marie-Claire ten Veldhuis, Rolf W. Hut, and Bas J. H. van de Wiel
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1397, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1397, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Grass has very strong insulating properties, which results in very large vertical air temperature differences in the relatively short canopy of around 10 cm. Accurately measuring this gradient within, and just above the grass is an open challenge in the field of atmospheric physics. In this paper we present a new, openly accessible and adaptable general method to probe vertical temperature profiles close to a mm vertical resolution, on the basis of Distributed Temperature Sensing (DTS).
Devi Purnamasari, Adriaan J. Teuling, and Albrecht H. Weerts
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 29, 1483–1503, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-1483-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-1483-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
This paper introduces a method to identify irrigated areas by combining hydrology models with satellite temperature data. Our method was tested in the Rhine basin and aligns well with official statistics. It performs best in regions with large farms and less well in areas with small farms. Observed differences to existing data are influenced by data resolution and methods.
Junfu Gong, Xingwen Liu, Cheng Yao, Zhijia Li, Albrecht H. Weerts, Qiaoling Li, Satish Bastola, Yingchun Huang, and Junzeng Xu
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 29, 335–360, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-335-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-335-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Our study introduces a new method to improve flood forecasting by combining soil moisture and streamflow data using an advanced data assimilation technique. By integrating field and reanalysis soil moisture data and assimilating this with streamflow measurements, we aim to enhance the accuracy of flood predictions. This approach reduces the accumulation of past errors in the initial conditions at the start of the forecast, helping to better prepare for and respond to floods.
Luuk D. van der Valk, Oscar K. Hartogensis, Miriam Coenders-Gerrits, Rolf W. Hut, Bas Walraven, and Remko Uijlenhoet
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2974, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2974, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Commercial microwave links (CMLs), part of mobile phone networks, transmit comparable signals as instruments specially designed to estimate evaporation. Therefore, we investigate if CMLs could be used to estimate evaporation, even though they have not been designed for this purpose. Our results illustrate the potential of using CMLs to estimate evaporation, especially given their global coverage, but also outline some major drawbacks, often a consequence of unfavourable design choices for CMLs.
Steven Reinaldo Rusli, Victor F. Bense, Syed M. T. Mustafa, and Albrecht H. Weerts
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 5107–5131, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-5107-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-5107-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
In this paper, we investigate the impact of climatic and anthropogenic factors on future groundwater availability. The changes are simulated using hydrological and groundwater flow models. We find that future groundwater status is influenced more by anthropogenic factors than climatic factors. The results are beneficial for informing responsible parties in operational water management about achieving future (ground)water governance.
Jerom P. M. Aerts, Jannis M. Hoch, Gemma Coxon, Nick C. van de Giesen, and Rolf W. Hut
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 5011–5030, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-5011-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-5011-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
For users of hydrological models, model suitability often hinges on how well simulated outputs match observed discharge. This study highlights the importance of including discharge observation uncertainty in hydrological model performance assessment. We highlight the need to account for this uncertainty in model comparisons and introduce a practical method suitable for any observational time series with available uncertainty estimates.
Henry M. Zimba, Miriam Coenders-Gerrits, Kawawa E. Banda, Petra Hulsman, Nick van de Giesen, Imasiku A. Nyambe, and Hubert H. G. Savenije
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 3633–3663, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-3633-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-3633-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
The fall and flushing of new leaves in the miombo woodlands co-occur in the dry season before the commencement of seasonal rainfall. The miombo species are also said to have access to soil moisture in deep soils, including groundwater in the dry season. Satellite-based evaporation estimates, temporal trends, and magnitudes differ the most in the dry season, most likely due to inadequate understanding and representation of the highlighted miombo species attributes in simulations.
Luuk D. van der Valk, Miriam Coenders-Gerrits, Rolf W. Hut, Aart Overeem, Bas Walraven, and Remko Uijlenhoet
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 17, 2811–2832, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-2811-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-2811-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Microwave links, often part of mobile phone networks, can be used to measure rainfall along the link path by determining the signal loss caused by rainfall. We use high-frequency data of multiple microwave links to recreate commonly used sampling strategies. For time intervals up to 1 min, the influence of sampling strategies on estimated rainfall intensities is relatively little, while for intervals longer than 5–15 min, the sampling strategy can have significant influences on the estimates.
Willem J. van Verseveld, Albrecht H. Weerts, Martijn Visser, Joost Buitink, Ruben O. Imhoff, Hélène Boisgontier, Laurène Bouaziz, Dirk Eilander, Mark Hegnauer, Corine ten Velden, and Bobby Russell
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 3199–3234, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3199-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3199-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We present the wflow_sbm distributed hydrological model, recently released by Deltares, as part of the Wflow.jl open-source modelling framework in the programming language Julia. Wflow_sbm has a fast runtime, making it suitable for large-scale modelling. Wflow_sbm models can be set a priori for any catchment with the Python tool HydroMT-Wflow based on globally available datasets, which results in satisfactory to good performance (without much tuning). We show this for a number of specific cases.
Marjanne J. Zander, Pety J. Viguurs, Frederiek C. Sperna Weiland, and Albrecht H. Weerts
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2023-274, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2023-274, 2023
Manuscript not accepted for further review
Short summary
Short summary
Flash floods are damaging natural hazard which often occur in the European Alps. High resolution climate model output is combined with high resolution distributed hydrological models to model changes in flash flood frequency and intensity. Results show a similar flash flood frequency for autumn in the future, but a decrease in summer. However, the future discharge simulations indicate an increase in the flash flood severity in both summer and autumn leading to more severe flash flood impacts.
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.
Jessica A. Eisma, Gerrit Schoups, Jeffrey C. Davids, and Nick van de Giesen
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 27, 3565–3579, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-3565-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-3565-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Citizen scientists often submit high-quality data, but a robust method for assessing data quality is needed. This study develops a semi-automated program that characterizes the mistakes made by citizen scientists by grouping them into communities of citizen scientists with similar mistake tendencies and flags potentially erroneous data for further review. This work may help citizen science programs assess the quality of their data and can inform training practices.
Henry Zimba, Miriam Coenders-Gerrits, Kawawa Banda, Bart Schilperoort, Nick van de Giesen, Imasiku Nyambe, and Hubert H. G. Savenije
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 27, 1695–1722, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-1695-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-1695-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Miombo woodland plants continue to lose water even during the driest part of the year. This appears to be facilitated by the adapted features such as deep rooting (beyond 5 m) with access to deep soil moisture, potentially even ground water. It appears the trend and amount of water that the plants lose is correlated more to the available energy. This loss of water in the dry season by miombo woodland plants appears to be incorrectly captured by satellite-based evaporation estimates.
Pau Wiersma, Jerom Aerts, Harry Zekollari, Markus Hrachowitz, Niels Drost, Matthias Huss, Edwin H. Sutanudjaja, and Rolf Hut
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 5971–5986, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-5971-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-5971-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
We test whether coupling a global glacier model (GloGEM) with a global hydrological model (PCR-GLOBWB 2) leads to a more realistic glacier representation and to improved basin runoff simulations across 25 large-scale basins. The coupling does lead to improved glacier representation, mainly by accounting for glacier flow and net glacier mass loss, and to improved basin runoff simulations, mostly in strongly glacier-influenced basins, which is where the coupling has the most impact.
Mar J. Zander, Pety J. Viguurs, Frederiek C. Sperna Weiland, and Albrecht H. Weerts
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2022-207, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2022-207, 2022
Manuscript not accepted for further review
Short summary
Short summary
We perform a modelling study to research potential future changes in flash flood occurrence in the European Alps. We use new high-resolution numerical climate simulations, which can simulate the type of local, intense rainstorms which trigger flash floods, combined with high-resolution hydrological modelling. We find that flash floods would become less frequent in summers in our future climate scenario, with little change in autumns. However, the maximal severity would increase in both seasons.
Rolf Hut, Niels Drost, Nick van de Giesen, Ben van Werkhoven, Banafsheh Abdollahi, Jerom Aerts, Thomas Albers, Fakhereh Alidoost, Bouwe Andela, Jaro Camphuijsen, Yifat Dzigan, Ronald van Haren, Eric Hutton, Peter Kalverla, Maarten van Meersbergen, Gijs van den Oord, Inti Pelupessy, Stef Smeets, Stefan Verhoeven, Martine de Vos, and Berend Weel
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 5371–5390, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-5371-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-5371-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
With the eWaterCycle platform, we are providing the hydrological community with a platform to conduct their research that is fully compatible with the principles of both open science and FAIR science. The eWatercyle platform gives easy access to well-known hydrological models, big datasets and example experiments. Using eWaterCycle hydrologists can easily compare the results from different models, couple models and do more complex hydrological computational research.
Henry Zimba, Miriam Coenders-Gerrits, Kawawa Banda, Petra Hulsman, Nick van de Giesen, Imasiku Nyambe, and Hubert Savenije
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2022-114, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2022-114, 2022
Manuscript not accepted for further review
Short summary
Short summary
We compare performance of evaporation models in the Luangwa Basin located in a semi-arid and complex Miombo ecosystem in Africa. Miombo plants changes colour, drop off leaves and acquire new leaves during the dry season. In addition, the plant roots go deep in the soil and appear to access groundwater. Results show that evaporation models with structure and process that do not capture this unique plant structure and behaviour appears to have difficulties to correctly estimating evaporation.
Laurène J. E. Bouaziz, Emma E. Aalbers, Albrecht H. Weerts, Mark Hegnauer, Hendrik Buiteveld, Rita Lammersen, Jasper Stam, Eric Sprokkereef, Hubert H. G. Savenije, and Markus Hrachowitz
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 1295–1318, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-1295-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-1295-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Assuming stationarity of hydrological systems is no longer appropriate when considering land use and climate change. We tested the sensitivity of hydrological predictions to changes in model parameters that reflect ecosystem adaptation to climate and potential land use change. We estimated a 34 % increase in the root zone storage parameter under +2 K global warming, resulting in up to 15 % less streamflow in autumn, due to 14 % higher summer evaporation, compared to a stationary system.
Paul C. Vermunt, Susan C. Steele-Dunne, Saeed Khabbazan, Jasmeet Judge, and Nick C. van de Giesen
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 1223–1241, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-1223-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-1223-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
This study investigates the use of hydrometeorological sensors to reconstruct variations in internal vegetation water content of corn and relates these variations to the sub-daily behaviour of polarimetric L-band backscatter. The results show significant sensitivity of backscatter to the daily cycles of vegetation water content and dew, particularly on dry days and for vertical and cross-polarizations, which demonstrates the potential for using radar for studies on vegetation water dynamics.
Caitlyn A. Hall, Sheila M. Saia, Andrea L. Popp, Nilay Dogulu, Stanislaus J. Schymanski, Niels Drost, Tim van Emmerik, and Rolf Hut
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 647–664, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-647-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-647-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Impactful open, accessible, reusable, and reproducible hydrologic research practices are being embraced by individuals and the community, but taking the plunge can seem overwhelming. We present the Open Hydrology Principles and Practical Guide to help hydrologists move toward open science, research, and education. We discuss the benefits and how hydrologists can overcome common challenges. We encourage all hydrologists to join the open science community (https://open-hydrology.github.io).
Wouter Dorigo, Irene Himmelbauer, Daniel Aberer, Lukas Schremmer, Ivana Petrakovic, Luca Zappa, Wolfgang Preimesberger, Angelika Xaver, Frank Annor, Jonas Ardö, Dennis Baldocchi, Marco Bitelli, Günter Blöschl, Heye Bogena, Luca Brocca, Jean-Christophe Calvet, J. Julio Camarero, Giorgio Capello, Minha Choi, Michael C. Cosh, Nick van de Giesen, Istvan Hajdu, Jaakko Ikonen, Karsten H. Jensen, Kasturi Devi Kanniah, Ileen de Kat, Gottfried Kirchengast, Pankaj Kumar Rai, Jenni Kyrouac, Kristine Larson, Suxia Liu, Alexander Loew, Mahta Moghaddam, José Martínez Fernández, Cristian Mattar Bader, Renato Morbidelli, Jan P. Musial, Elise Osenga, Michael A. Palecki, Thierry Pellarin, George P. Petropoulos, Isabella Pfeil, Jarrett Powers, Alan Robock, Christoph Rüdiger, Udo Rummel, Michael Strobel, Zhongbo Su, Ryan Sullivan, Torbern Tagesson, Andrej Varlagin, Mariette Vreugdenhil, Jeffrey Walker, Jun Wen, Fred Wenger, Jean Pierre Wigneron, Mel Woods, Kun Yang, Yijian Zeng, Xiang Zhang, Marek Zreda, Stephan Dietrich, Alexander Gruber, Peter van Oevelen, Wolfgang Wagner, Klaus Scipal, Matthias Drusch, and Roberto Sabia
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 5749–5804, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-5749-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-5749-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
The International Soil Moisture Network (ISMN) is a community-based open-access data portal for soil water measurements taken at the ground and is accessible at https://ismn.earth. Over 1000 scientific publications and thousands of users have made use of the ISMN. The scope of this paper is to inform readers about the data and functionality of the ISMN and to provide a review of the scientific progress facilitated through the ISMN with the scope to shape future research and operations.
Dirk Eilander, Willem van Verseveld, Dai Yamazaki, Albrecht Weerts, Hessel C. Winsemius, and Philip J. Ward
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 5287–5313, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-5287-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-5287-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Digital elevation models and derived flow directions are crucial to distributed hydrological modeling. As the spatial resolution of models is typically coarser than these data, we need methods to upscale flow direction data while preserving the river structure. We propose the Iterative Hydrography Upscaling (IHU) method and show it outperforms other often-applied methods. We publish the multi-resolution MERIT Hydro IHU hydrography dataset and the algorithm as part of the pyflwdir Python package.
Didier de Villiers, Marc Schleiss, Marie-Claire ten Veldhuis, Rolf Hut, and Nick van de Giesen
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 14, 5607–5623, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-14-5607-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-14-5607-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Ground-based rainfall observations across the African continent are sparse. We present a new and inexpensive rainfall measuring instrument (the intervalometer) and use it to derive reasonably accurate rainfall rates. These are dependent on a fundamental assumption that is widely used in parameterisations of the rain drop size distribution. This assumption is tested and found to not apply for most raindrops but is still useful in deriving rainfall rates. The intervalometer shows good potential.
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.
Katja Weigel, Lisa Bock, Bettina K. Gier, Axel Lauer, Mattia Righi, Manuel Schlund, Kemisola Adeniyi, Bouwe Andela, Enrico Arnone, Peter Berg, Louis-Philippe Caron, Irene Cionni, Susanna Corti, Niels Drost, Alasdair Hunter, Llorenç Lledó, Christian Wilhelm Mohr, Aytaç Paçal, Núria Pérez-Zanón, Valeriu Predoi, Marit Sandstad, Jana Sillmann, Andreas Sterl, Javier Vegas-Regidor, Jost von Hardenberg, and Veronika Eyring
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 3159–3184, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-3159-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-3159-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
This work presents new diagnostics for the Earth System Model Evaluation Tool (ESMValTool) v2.0 on the hydrological cycle, extreme events, impact assessment, regional evaluations, and ensemble member selection. The ESMValTool v2.0 diagnostics are developed by a large community of scientists aiming to facilitate the evaluation and comparison of Earth system models (ESMs) with a focus on the ESMs participating in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP).
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.
Jerom P. M. Aerts, Steffi Uhlemann-Elmer, Dirk Eilander, and Philip J. Ward
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 20, 3245–3260, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-20-3245-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-20-3245-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
We compare and analyse flood hazard maps from eight global flood models that represent the current state of the global flood modelling community. We apply our comparison to China as a case study, and for the first time, we include industry models, pluvial flooding, and flood protection standards. We find substantial variability between the flood hazard maps in the modelled inundated area and exposed gross domestic product (GDP) across multiple return periods and in expected annual exposed GDP.
Moctar Dembélé, Bettina Schaefli, Nick van de Giesen, and Grégoire Mariéthoz
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 24, 5379–5406, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-5379-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-5379-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
This study evaluates 102 combinations of rainfall and temperature datasets from satellite and reanalysis sources as input to a fully distributed hydrological model. The model is recalibrated for each input dataset, and the outputs are evaluated with streamflow, evaporation, soil moisture and terrestrial water storage data. Results show that no single rainfall or temperature dataset consistently ranks first in reproducing the spatio-temporal variability of all hydrological processes.
Rolf Hut, Thanda Thatoe Nwe Win, and Thom Bogaard
Geosci. Instrum. Method. Data Syst., 9, 435–442, https://doi.org/10.5194/gi-9-435-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/gi-9-435-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
GPS drifters that float down rivers are important tools in studying rivers, but they can be expensive. Recently, both GPS receivers and cellular modems have become available at lower prices to tinkering scientists due to the rise of open hardware and the Arduino. We provide detailed instructions on how to build a low-power GPS drifter with local storage and a cellular model that we tested in a fieldwork in Myanmar. These instructions allow fellow geoscientists to recreate the device.
Justus G. V. van Ramshorst, Miriam Coenders-Gerrits, Bart Schilperoort, Bas J. H. van de Wiel, Jonathan G. Izett, John S. Selker, Chad W. Higgins, Hubert H. G. Savenije, and Nick C. van de Giesen
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 13, 5423–5439, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-13-5423-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-13-5423-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
In this work we present experimental results of a novel actively heated fiber-optic (AHFO) observational wind-probing technique. We utilized a controlled wind-tunnel setup to assess both the accuracy and precision of AHFO under a range of operational conditions (wind speed, angles of attack and temperature differences). AHFO has the potential to provide high-resolution distributed observations of wind speeds, allowing for better spatial characterization of fine-scale processes.
Cited articles
Addor, N., Newman, A. J., Mizukami, N., and Clark, M. P.: The CAMELS data set: catchment attributes and meteorology for large-sample studies, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 21, 5293–5313, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-5293-2017, 2017. a
Aerts, J. P. M.: eWaterCycle_example_notebooks (Version 1),
Zenodo [code], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5724512, 2021a. a
Aerts, J. P. M.: Wflow SBM streamflow estimates for CAMELS data set (Version 1), Zenodo [data set], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5724576, 2021b. a
Beck, H. E., Wood, E. F., Pan, M., Fisher, C. K., Miralles, D. G., van Dijk, A. I. J. M., McVicar, T. R., and Adler, R. F.: MSWEP V2 Global 3-Hourly 0.1∘ Precipitation: Methodology and Quantitative Assessment,
Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 100, 473–500,
https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-17-0138.1, 2019. a
Bell, V. A., Kay, A. L., Jones, R. G., and Moore, R. J.: Development of a high resolution grid-based river flow model for use with regional climate model output, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 11, 532–549, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-11-532-2007, 2007. a
Benning, R.: Towards a new lumped parameterization at catchment scale, PHD thesis, Thesis, University of Wageningen, the Netherlands, http://edepot.wur.nl/216531ID (last access: 28 November 2021), 1994. a
Beven, K. J. and Cloke, H. L.: Comment on “Hyperresolution global land
surface modeling: Meeting a grand challenge for monitoring Earth's
terrestrial water” by Eric F. Wood et al., Water Resour. Res.,
48, W01801, https://doi.org/10.1029/2011WR010982, 2012. a
Bierkens, M. F. P., Bell, V. A., Burek, P., Chaney, N., Condon, L. E., David,
C. H., de Roo, A., Döll, P., Drost, N., Famiglietti, J. S., Flörke, M.,
Gochis, D. J., Houser, P., Hut, R., Keune, J., Kollet, S., Maxwell, R. M.,
Reager, J. T., Samaniego, L., Sudicky, E., Sutanudjaja, E. H., van de Giesen, N., Winsemius, H., and Wood, E. F.: Hyper-resolution global hydrological modelling: what is next?, Hydrol. Process., 29, 310–320,
https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.10391, 2015. a, b
Blöschl, G. and Sivapalan, M.: Scale issues in hydrological modelling: A
review, Hydrol. Process., 9, 251–290, https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.3360090305, 1995. a
Bogaart, P. W. and Troch, P. A.: Curvature distribution within hillslopes and catchments and its effect on the hydrological response, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 10, 925–936, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-10-925-2006, 2006. a
Booij, M.: Impact of climate change on river flooding assessed with different
spatial model resolutions, J. Hydrol., 303, 176–198,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2004.07.013, 2005. a
Bras, R. L.: Complexity and organization in hydrology: A personal view, Water Resour. Res., 51, 6532–6548, https://doi.org/10.1002/2015WR016958, 2015. a
Brooks, R. H. and Corey, A. T.: Hydraulic Properties of Porous Media,
Hydrology Papers, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, p. 37,
1964. a
Buchhorn, M., Lesiv, M., Tsendbazar, N.-E., Herold, M., Bertels, L., and Smets,
B.: Copernicus Global Land Cover Layers–Collection 2, Remote
Sens., 12, 1044, https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12061044, 2020. a
Ciarapica, L. and Todini, E.: TOPKAPI: a model for the representation of the
rainfall-runoff process at different scales, Hydrol. Process., 16,
207–229, https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.342, 2002. a
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
Clark, M. P., Vogel, R. M., Lamontagne, J. R., Mizukami, N., Knoben, W. J. M.,
Tang, G., Gharari, S., Freer, J. E., Whitfield, P. H., Shook, K. R., and
Papalexiou, S. M.: The Abuse of Popular Performance Metrics in
Hydrologic Modeling, Water Resour. Res., 57, e2020WR029001,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2020WR029001, 2021. a, b, c
Cosby, B. J., Hornberger, G. M., Clapp, R. B., and Ginn, T. R.: A Statistical Exploration of the Relationships of Soil Moisture Characteristics to the Physical Properties of Soils, Water Resour. Res., 20, 682–690, https://doi.org/10.1029/WR020i006p00682, 1984. a
de Bruin, H. A. R., Trigo, I. F., Bosveld, F. C., and Meirink, J. F.: A
Thermodynamically Based Model for Actual Evapotranspiration of an
Extensive Grass Field Close to FAO Reference, Suitable for
Remote Sensing Application, J. Hydrometeorol., 17,
1373–1382, https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM-D-15-0006.1, 2016. a, b
Efron, B.: Jackknife-After-Bootstrap Standard Errors and Influence
Functions, J. Roy. Stat. Soc. B Met., 54, 83–111, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1992.tb01866.x, 1992. a
Efron, B. and Tibshirani, R.: Bootstrap Methods for Standard Errors,
Confidence Intervals, and Other Measures of Statistical Accuracy, Stat. Sci., 1, 54–75, https://doi.org/10.1214/ss/1177013815, 1986. a
Eilander, D. and Boisgontier, H.: HydroMT, GitHub [data set], https://github.com/Deltares/hydromt, 2021. a
Eilander, D., van Verseveld, W., Yamazaki, D., Weerts, A., Winsemius, H. C., and Ward, P. J.: A hydrography upscaling method for scale-invariant parametrization of distributed hydrological models, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 5287–5313, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-5287-2021, 2021. a, b
Fan, Y., Clark, M., Lawrence, D. M., Swenson, S., Band, L. E., Brantley, S. L.,
Brooks, P. D., Dietrich, W. E., Flores, A., Grant, G., Kirchner, J. W.,
Mackay, D. S., McDonnell, J. J., Milly, P. C. D., Sullivan, P. L., Tague, C.,
Ajami, H., Chaney, N., Hartmann, A., Hazenberg, P., McNamara, J., Pelletier,
J., Perket, J., Rouholahnejad-Freund, E., Wagener, T., Zeng, X., Beighley,
E., Buzan, J., Huang, M., Livneh, B., Mohanty, B. P., Nijssen, B., Safeeq,
M., Shen, C., van Verseveld, W., Volk, J., and Yamazaki, D.: Hillslope
Hydrology in Global Change Research and Earth System Modeling, Water Resour. Res., 55, 1737–1772, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018WR023903, 2019. a
Feddes, R. A., Kowalik, P. J., and Zaradny, H.: Water uptake by plant roots, in: Simulation of Field Water
Use and Crop Yield, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, USA, 16–30, google-Books-ID: zEJzQgAACAAJ, 1978. a
Finnerty, B. D., Smith, M. B., Seo, D.-J., Koren, V., and Moglen, G. E.:
Space-time scale sensitivity of the Sacramento model to radar-gage
precipitation inputs, J. Hydrol., 203, 21–38,
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(97)00083-8, 1997. a
Fowler, K., Peel, M., Western, A., and Zhang, L.: Improved Rainfall-Runoff
Calibration for Drying Climate: Choice of Objective Function,
Water Resour. Res., 54, 3392–3408, https://doi.org/10.1029/2017WR022466, 2018. a
Garrick, M., Cunnane, C., and Nash, J. E.: A criterion of efficiency for
rainfall-runoff models, J. Hydrol., 36, 375–381,
https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1694(78)90155-5, 1978. a
Gash, J. H. C.: An analytical model of rainfall interception by forests,
Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 105, 43–55,
https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.49710544304, 1979. a
Gauch, M., Kratzert, F., Klotz, D., Nearing, G., Lin, J., and Hochreiter, S.: Rainfall–runoff prediction at multiple timescales with a single Long Short-Term Memory network, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 2045–2062, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-2045-2021, 2021. a
Gharari, S., Clark, M. P., Mizukami, N., Knoben, W. J. M., Wong, J. S., and Pietroniro, A.: Flexible vector-based spatial configurations in land models, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 24, 5953–5971, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-5953-2020, 2020. a
Grayson, R. B., Moore, I. D., and McMahon, T. A.: Physically based hydrologic
modeling: 1. A terrain-based model for investigative purposes, Water Resour. Res., 28, 2639–2658, https://doi.org/10.1029/92WR01258, 1992. 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, b
Gupta, V. K., Rodríguez-Iturbe, I., and Wood, E. F.: Scale Problems in
Hydrology, Water Science and Technology Library, vol. 6, Springer Dordrecht, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-4678-1, 1986. a
Guse, B., Kiesel, J., Pfannerstill, M., and Fohrer, N.: Assessing parameter
identifiability for multiple performance criteria to constrain model
parameters, Hydrol. Sci. J., 65, 1158–1172,
https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2020.1734204, 2020. a
Guse, B., Fatichi, S., Gharari, S., and Melsen, L. A.: Advancing Process
Representation in Hydrological Models: Integrating New Concepts, Knowledge, and Data, Water Resour. Res., 57, e2021WR030661,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2021WR030661, 2021. a
Haddeland, I., Lettenmaier, D. P., and Skaugen, T.: Reconciling Simulated
Moisture Fluxes Resulting from Alternate Hydrologic Model Time Steps and Energy Budget Closure Assumptions, J. Hydrometeorol., 7, 355–370, https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM496.1, 2006. a
Hengl, T., de Jesus, J. M., Heuvelink, G. B. M., Gonzalez, M. R., Kilibarda,
M., Blagotić, A., Shangguan, W., Wright, M. N., Geng, X.,
Bauer-Marschallinger, B., Guevara, M. A., Vargas, R., MacMillan, R. A.,
Batjes, N. H., Leenaars, J. G. B., Ribeiro, E., Wheeler, I., Mantel, S., and Kempen, B.: SoilGrids250m: Global gridded soil information based on
machine learning, PLOS ONE, 12, e0169748, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0169748, 2017. a
Hersbach, H., Bell, B., Berrisford, P., Hirahara, S., Horányi, A.,
Muñoz-Sabater, J., Nicolas, J., Peubey, C., Radu, R., Schepers, D., Simmons,
A., Soci, C., Abdalla, S., Abellan, X., Balsamo, G., Bechtold, P., Biavati,
G., Bidlot, J., Bonavita, M., De Chiara, G., Dahlgren, P., Dee, D.,
Diamantakis, M., Dragani, R., Flemming, J., Forbes, R., Fuentes, M., Geer,
A., Haimberger, L., Healy, S., Hogan, R. J., Hólm, E., Janisková, M.,
Keeley, S., Laloyaux, P., Lopez, P., Lupu, C., Radnoti, G., de Rosnay, P.,
Rozum, I., Vamborg, F., Villaume, S., and Thépaut, J.-N.: The ERA5 global
reanalysis, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 146, 1999–2049, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.3803, 2020. a
Horritt, M. S. and Bates, P. D.: Effects of spatial resolution on a raster
based model of flood flow, J. Hydrol., 253, 239–249,
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(01)00490-5, 2001. a
Houze Jr., R. A.: Orographic effects on precipitating clouds, Rev. Geophys., 50, RG1001, https://doi.org/10.1029/2011RG000365, 2012. 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
Hut, R., Drost, N., van de Giesen, N., van Werkhoven, B., Abdollahi, B., Aerts, J., Albers, T., Alidoost, F., Andela, B., Camphuijsen, J., Dzigan, Y., van Haren, R., Hutton, E., Kalverla, P., van Meersbergen, M., van den Oord, G., Pelupessy, I., Smeets, S., Verhoeven, S., de Vos, M., and Weel, B.: The eWaterCycle platform for open and FAIR hydrological collaboration, Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 5371–5390, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-5371-2022, 2022. a, b, c
Hutton, E. W. h., Piper, M. D., and Tucker, G. E.: The Basic Model
Interface 2.0: A standard interface for coupling numerical models in the geosciences, Journal of Open Source Software, 5, 2317,
https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.02317, 2020. a
Imhoff, R. O., van Verseveld, W. J., van Osnabrugge, B., and Weerts, A. H.:
Scaling Point-Scale (Pedo)transfer Functions to Seamless
Large-Domain Parameter Estimates for High-Resolution
Distributed Hydrologic Modeling: An Example for the Rhine
River, Water Resour. Res., 56, e2019WR026807, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019WR026807, 2020. a, b, c, d, e, f
Karger, D. N., Conrad, O., Böhner, J., Kawohl, T., Kreft, H., Soria-Auza,
R. W., Zimmermann, N. E., Linder, H. P., and Kessler, M.: Climatologies at
high resolution for the earth’s land surface areas, Scientific Data, 4,
170122, https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2017.122, 2017. a
Karssenberg, D. J., Schmitz, O., Salamon, P., de Jong, K., and Bierkens, M.
F. P.: A software framework for construction of process-based stochastic
spatio-temporal models and data assimilation, Environ. Modell. Softw., 25, 489–502, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2009.10.004, 2010. 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, b
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, 2019a. 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, 2019b. a
Knoben, W. J. M., Freer, J. E., and Woods, R. A.: Technical note: Inherent benchmark or not? Comparing Nash–Sutcliffe and Kling–Gupta efficiency scores, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 23, 4323–4331, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-23-4323-2019, 2019c. a
Kolmogorov, A. N.: Foundations of the theory of probability, Foundations of the theory of probability, Chelsea Publishing Co., Oxford, England, 71, p. 8, 1933. a
Kottek, M., Grieser, J., Beck, C., Rudolf, B., and Rubel, F.: World Map of
the Köppen-Geiger climate classification updated, Meteorol. Z., 15, 259–263, https://doi.org/10.1127/0941-2948/2006/0130, 2006. a
Lehner, B., Liermann, C. R., Revenga, C., Vörösmarty, C., Fekete, B.,
Crouzet, P., Döll, P., Endejan, M., Frenken, K., Magome, J., Nilsson, C.,
Robertson, J. C., Rödel, R., Sindorf, N., and Wisser, D.: High-resolution
mapping of the world's reservoirs and dams for sustainable river-flow
management, Front. Ecol. Environ., 9, 494–502, https://doi.org/10.1890/100125, 2011. a
Melsen, L. A., Teuling, A. J., Torfs, P. J. J. F., Uijlenhoet, R., Mizukami, N., and Clark, M. P.: HESS Opinions: The need for process-based evaluation of large-domain hyper-resolution models, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 20, 1069–1079, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-20-1069-2016, 2016. a, b
Messager, M. L., Lehner, B., Grill, G., Nedeva, I., and Schmitt, O.: Estimating the volume and age of water stored in global lakes using a geo-statistical approach, Nat. Commun., 7, 13603, https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms13603, 2016. a
Mizukami, N., Clark, M. P., Newman, A. J., Wood, A. W., Gutmann, E. D.,
Nijssen, B., Rakovec, O., and Samaniego, L.: Towards seamless large-domain
parameter estimation for hydrologic models, Water Resour. Res., 53,
8020–8040, https://doi.org/10.1002/2017WR020401, 2017. a
Mott, R., Vionnet, V., and Grünewald, T.: The Seasonal Snow Cover
Dynamics: Review on Wind-Driven Coupling Processes, Front. Earth Sci., 6, 197, https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2018.00197, 2018. a
Myneni, R., Knyazikhin, Y., and Park, T.: MCD15A3H MODIS/Terra+Aqua
Leaf Area Index/FPAR 4-day L4 Global 500 m SIN Grid V006, MODIS [data set], https://doi.org/10.5067/MODIS/MCD15A3H.006, 2015. 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
Newman, A. J., Clark, M. P., Sampson, K., Wood, A., Hay, L. E., Bock, A., Viger, R. J., Blodgett, D., Brekke, L., Arnold, J. R., Hopson, T., and Duan, Q.: Development of a large-sample watershed-scale hydrometeorological data set for the contiguous USA: data set characteristics and assessment of regional variability in hydrologic model performance, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 19, 209–223, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-19-209-2015, 2015. a, b
Oreskes, N., Shrader-Frechette, K., and Belitz, K.: Verification, Validation, and Confirmation of Numerical Models in the Earth Sciences, Science, 263, 641–646, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.263.5147.641, 1994. a
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, 2015. a
Pfeffer, W. T., Arendt, A. A., Bliss, A., Bolch, T., Cogley, J. G., Gardner,
A. S., Hagen, J.-O., Hock, R., Kaser, G., Kienholz, C., Miles, E. S.,
Moholdt, G., Mölg, N., Paul, F., Radić, V., Rastner, P., Raup, B. H., Rich,
J., Sharp, M. J., and Consortium, T. R.: The Randolph Glacier
Inventory: a globally complete inventory of glaciers, J. Glaciol., 60, 537–552, https://doi.org/10.3189/2014JoG13J176, 2014. a
Pool, S., Vis, M., and Seibert, J.: Evaluating model performance: towards a
non-parametric variant of the Kling-Gupta efficiency, Hydrol. Sci. J., 63, 1941–1953, https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2018.1552002, 2018. a
Rakovec, O., Mizukami, N., Kumar, R., Newman, A. J., Thober, S., Wood, A. W.,
Clark, M. P., and Samaniego, L.: Diagnostic Evaluation of Large-Domain
Hydrologic Models Calibrated Across the Contiguous United
States, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 124, 13991–14007, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JD030767, 2019. a
Reggiani, P. and Schellekens, J.: Modelling of hydrological responses: the
representative elementary watershed approach as an alternative blueprint for watershed modelling, Hydrol. Process., 17, 3785–3789, 2003. a
Reggiani, P., Sivapalan, M., and Majid Hassanizadeh, S.: A unifying framework
for watershed thermodynamics: balance equations for mass, momentum, energy
and entropy, and the second law of thermodynamics, Adv. Water
Resour., 22, 367–398, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0309-1708(98)00012-8, 1998. a
Reggiani, P., Hassanizadeh, S. M., Sivapalan, M., and Gray, W. G.: A unifying
framework for watershed thermodynamics: constitutive relationships, Adv. Water Resour., 23, 15–39, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0309-1708(99)00005-6, 1999. a
Righi, M., Andela, B., Eyring, V., Lauer, A., Predoi, V., Schlund, M., Vegas-Regidor, J., Bock, L., Brötz, B., de Mora, L., Diblen, F., Dreyer, L., Drost, N., Earnshaw, P., Hassler, B., Koldunov, N., Little, B., Loosveldt Tomas, S., and Zimmermann, K.: Earth System Model Evaluation Tool (ESMValTool) v2.0 – technical overview, Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 1179–1199, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-1179-2020, 2020. a
Rouholahnejad Freund, E., Zappa, M., and Kirchner, J. W.: Averaging over spatiotemporal heterogeneity substantially biases evapotranspiration rates in a mechanistic large-scale land evaporation model, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 24, 5015–5025, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-5015-2020, 2020. a
Rutter, A. J., Kershaw, K. A., Robins, P. C., and Morton, A. J.: A predictive
model of rainfall interception in forests, 1. Derivation of the model from observations in a plantation of Corsican pine, Agr. Meteorol., 9, 367–384, https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-1571(71)90034-3, 1971. a
Rutter, A. J., Morton, A. J., and Robins, P. C.: A Predictive Model of
Rainfall Interception in Forests, II. Generalization of the Model and Comparison with Observations in Some Coniferous and Hardwood Stands, J. Appl. Ecol., 12, 367–380, https://doi.org/10.2307/2401739, 1975. a
Samaniego, L., Kumar, R., and Attinger, S.: Multiscale parameter
regionalization of a grid-based hydrologic model at the mesoscale, Water Resour. Res., 46, 1–25, https://doi.org/10.1029/2008WR007327, 2010. a
Schaefli, B. and Gupta, H. V.: Do Nash values have value?, Hydrol. Process., 21, 2075–2080, https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.6825, 2007. a
Schellekens, J., van Verseveld, W., Visser, M., hcwinsemius, laurenebouaziz,
tanjaeuser, sandercdevries, cthiange, hboisgon, DirkEilander,
DanielTollenaar, aweerts, Baart, F., Pieter9011, Pronk, M., arthur lutz,
ctenvelden, Imme1992, and Jansen, M.: openstreams/wflow: Bug fixes and
updates for release 2020.1.2, Zenodo [code], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4291730, 2020. a, b, c, d
Seibert, J.: On the need for benchmarks in hydrological modelling, Hydrol. Process., 15, 1063–1064, https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.446, 2001. a
Seibert, J., Vis, M. J. P., Lewis, E., and van Meerveld, H.: Upper and lower
benchmarks in hydrological modelling, Hydrol. Process., 32, 1120–1125,
https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.11476, 2018. a
Shrestha, P., Sulis, M., Simmer, C., and Kollet, S.: Impacts of grid resolution on surface energy fluxes simulated with an integrated surface-groundwater flow model, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 19, 4317–4326, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-19-4317-2015, 2015. a, b
Shuai, P., Chen, X., Mital, U., Coon, E. T., and Dwivedi, D.: The effects of spatial and temporal resolution of gridded meteorological forcing on watershed hydrological responses, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 2245–2276, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-2245-2022, 2022. a
Smirnov, N.V.: Estimate of Deviation between Empirical Distribution
Functions in Two Independent Samples, Bulletin Moscow University, 2, 3–16, 1933. a
Sorooshian, S. and Gupta, V. K.: Automatic calibration of conceptual
rainfall-runoff models: The question of parameter observability and
uniqueness, Water Resour. Res., 19, 260–268,
https://doi.org/10.1029/WR019i001p00260, 1983. a, b
Sutanudjaja, E. H., van Beek, R., Wanders, N., Wada, Y., Bosmans, J. H. C., Drost, N., van der Ent, R. J., de Graaf, I. E. M., Hoch, J. M., de Jong, K., Karssenberg, D., López López, P., Peßenteiner, S., Schmitz, O., Straatsma, M. W., Vannametee, E., Wisser, D., and Bierkens, M. F. P.: PCR-GLOBWB 2: a 5 arcmin global hydrological and water resources model, Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 2429–2453, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-2429-2018, 2018. a
Tanaka, T. and Tachikawa, Y.: Testing the applicability of a kinematic
wave-based distributed hydrological model in two climatically contrasting
catchments, Hydrol. Sci. J., 60, 1361–1373,
https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2014.967693, 2015. a
Tonkin, M. J. and Doherty, J.: A hybrid regularized inversion methodology for
highly parameterized environmental models, Water Resour. Res., 41, W10412,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2005WR003995, 2005. a
Tromp-van Meerveld, H. J. and McDonnell, J. J.: Threshold relations in
subsurface stormflow: 1. A 147-storm analysis of the Panola hillslope,
Water Resour. Res., 42, W02410, https://doi.org/10.1029/2004WR003778, 2006. a
van Verseveld, W., Visser, M., Bootsma, H., Boisgontier, H., and Bouaziz, L.:
Wflow.jl, Zenodo [code], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5384924, 2021. a
Vertessy, R. A. and Elsenbeer, H.: Distributed modeling of storm flow
generation in an Amazonian rain forest catchment: Effects of model
parameterization, Water Resour. Res., 35, 2173–2187,
https://doi.org/10.1029/1999WR900051, 1999. a, b
Vionnet, V., Marsh, C. B., Menounos, B., Gascoin, S., Wayand, N. E., Shea, J., Mukherjee, K., and Pomeroy, J. W.: Multi-scale snowdrift-permitting modelling of mountain snowpack, The Cryosphere, 15, 743–769, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-15-743-2021, 2021.
a
Vrugt, J. A., Bouten, W., Gupta, H. V., and Sorooshian, S.: Toward improved
identifiability of hydrologic model parameters: The information content of experimental data, Water Resour. Res., 38, 48-1–48-13,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2001WR001118, 2002. a
Wagener, T. and Wheater, H. S.: Parameter estimation and regionalization for
continuous rainfall-runoff models including uncertainty, J. Hydrol., 320, 132–154, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2005.07.015, 2006. a
Weigel, K., Bock, L., Gier, B. K., Lauer, A., Righi, M., Schlund, M., Adeniyi, K., Andela, B., Arnone, E., Berg, P., Caron, L.-P., Cionni, I., Corti, S., Drost, N., Hunter, A., Lledó, L., Mohr, C. W., Paçal, A., Pérez-Zanón, N., Predoi, V., Sandstad, M., Sillmann, J., Sterl, A., Vegas-Regidor, J., von Hardenberg, J., and Eyring, V.: Earth System Model Evaluation Tool (ESMValTool) v2.0 – diagnostics for extreme events, regional and impact evaluation, and analysis of Earth system models in CMIP, Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 3159–3184, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-3159-2021, 2021. a
Wilkinson, M. D., Sansone, S.-A., Schultes, E., Doorn, P., Bonino da
Silva Santos, L. O., and Dumontier, M.: A design framework and exemplar
metrics for FAIRness, Sci. Data, 5, 180118,
https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2018.118, 2018. a
Wood, E. F., Sivapalan, M., Beven, K., and Band, L.: Effects of spatial
variability and scale with implications to hydrologic modeling, J. Hydrol., 102, 29–47, https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1694(88)90090-X, 1988. a, b
Wood, E. F., Roundy, J. K., Troy, T. J., van Beek, L. P. H., Bierkens, M.
F. P., Blyth, E., de Roo, A., Döll, P., Ek, M., Famiglietti, J., Gochis, D.,
van de Giesen, N., Houser, P., Jaffé, P. R., Kollet, S., Lehner, B.,
Lettenmaier, D. P., Peters-Lidard, C., Sivapalan, M., Sheffield, J., Wade,
A., and Whitehead, P.: Hyperresolution global land surface modeling:
Meeting a grand challenge for monitoring Earth's terrestrial water, Water Resour. Res., 47, W05301, https://doi.org/10.1029/2010WR010090, 2011. a
Yamazaki, D., Ikeshima, D., Sosa, J., Bates, P. D., Allen, G. H., and Pavelsky,
T. M.: MERIT Hydro: A High-Resolution Global Hydrography Map
Based on Latest Topography Dataset, Water Resour. Res., 55,
5053–5073, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019WR024873, 2019. a
Short summary
In recent years gridded hydrological modelling moved into the realm of hyper-resolution modelling (<10 km). In this study, we investigate the effect of varying grid-cell sizes for the wflow_sbm hydrological model. We used a large sample of basins from the CAMELS data set to test the effect that varying grid-cell sizes has on the simulation of streamflow at the basin outlet. Results show that there is no single best grid-cell size for modelling streamflow throughout the domain.
In recent years gridded hydrological modelling moved into the realm of hyper-resolution...
