Articles | Volume 26, issue 21
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-5669-2022
© 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-26-5669-2022
© Author(s) 2022. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Research article
| 
10 Nov 2022
Research article |
| 10 Nov 2022
| 10 Nov 2022
Seamless streamflow forecasting at daily to monthly scales: MuTHRE lets you have your cake and eat it too
David McInerney
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
School of Civil, Environmental and Mining Engineering, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia
Mark Thyer
School of Civil, Environmental and Mining Engineering, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia
Dmitri Kavetski
School of Civil, Environmental and Mining Engineering, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia
Richard Laugesen
Bureau of Meteorology, Canberra, ACT, Australia
Fitsum Woldemeskel
Bureau of Meteorology, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
Narendra Tuteja
Bureau of Meteorology, Canberra, ACT, Australia
George Kuczera
School of Engineering, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia
Related authors
Richard Laugesen, Mark Thyer, David McInerney, and Dmitri Kavetski
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 27, 873–893, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-873-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-873-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Forecasts may be valuable for user decisions, but current practice to quantify it has critical limitations. This study introduces RUV (relative utility value, a new metric that can be tailored to specific decisions and decision-makers. It illustrates how critical this decision context is when evaluating forecast value. This study paves the way for agencies to tailor the evaluation of their services to customer decisions and researchers to study model improvements through the lens of user impact.
Christopher A. Pickett-Heaps, Patrick Sunter, Wendy Sharples, Michael Pegios, Catherine Wilson, Alex Cornish, Richard Laugesen, and Elisabetta Carrara
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1379, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1379, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
This study evaluates seasonal forecast skill of river discharge from (1) a gridded hydrological model coupled with statistical post-processing and (2) a locally calibrated statistical hydrological model dependant on recent hydrological observations. Results indicate a similar level of forecast skill. The statistical post-processor is not dependant on recent observations to maintain forecast skill, a finding that will have a positive impact on operational hydrological forecasting.
Richard Laugesen, Mark Thyer, David McInerney, and Dmitri Kavetski
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 27, 873–893, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-873-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-873-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Forecasts may be valuable for user decisions, but current practice to quantify it has critical limitations. This study introduces RUV (relative utility value, a new metric that can be tailored to specific decisions and decision-makers. It illustrates how critical this decision context is when evaluating forecast value. This study paves the way for agencies to tailor the evaluation of their services to customer decisions and researchers to study model improvements through the lens of user impact.
Gnanathikkam Emmanuel Amirthanathan, Mohammed Abdul Bari, Fitsum Markos Woldemeskel, Narendra Kumar Tuteja, and Paul Martinus Feikema
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 27, 229–254, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-229-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-229-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
We used statistical tests to detect annual and seasonal streamflow trends and step changes across Australia. The Murray–Darling Basin and other rivers in the southern and north-eastern areas showed decreasing trends. Only rivers in the Timor Sea region in northern Australia showed significant increasing trends. Our results assist with infrastructure planning and management of water resources. This study was undertaken by the Bureau of Meteorology with its responsibility under the Water Act 2007.
Hapu Arachchige Prasantha Hapuarachchi, Mohammed Abdul Bari, Aynul Kabir, Mohammad Mahadi Hasan, Fitsum Markos Woldemeskel, Nilantha Gamage, Patrick Daniel Sunter, Xiaoyong Sophie Zhang, David Ewen Robertson, James Clement Bennett, and Paul Martinus Feikema
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 4801–4821, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-4801-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-4801-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Methodology for developing an operational 7-day ensemble streamflow forecasting service for Australia is presented. The methodology is tested for 100 catchments to learn the characteristics of different NWP rainfall forecasts, the effect of post-processing, and the optimal ensemble size and bootstrapping parameters. Forecasts are generated using NWP rainfall products post-processed by the CHyPP model, the GR4H hydrologic model, and the ERRIS streamflow post-processor inbuilt in the SWIFT package
Marco Dal Molin, Dmitri Kavetski, and Fabrizio Fenicia
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 7047–7072, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-7047-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-7047-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
This paper introduces SuperflexPy, an open-source Python framework for building flexible conceptual hydrological models. SuperflexPy is available as open-source code and can be used by the hydrological community to investigate improved process representations, for model comparison, and for operational work.
Cited articles
Bauer, D. F.: Constructing Confidence Sets Using Rank Statistics, J. Am. Stat. Assoc., 67, 687–690, https://doi.org/10.2307/2284469, 1972.
Benjamini, Y. and Hochberg, Y.: Controlling the false discovery rate – a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing, J. Roy. Stat. Soc. B Met., 57, 289–300, 1995.
Boucher, M.-A. and Ramos, M.-H.: Ensemble Streamflow Forecasts for Hydropower Systems, in: Handbook of Hydrometeorological Ensemble Forecasting, edited by: Duan, Q., Pappenberger, F., Wood, A., Cloke, H. L., and Schaake, J. C., Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1289–1306, ISBN 978-3-642-39924-4, 2019.
Box, G. E. P. and Cox, D. R.: An analysis of transformations, J. Roy. Stat. Soc. B, 26, 211–252, 1964.
Bureau of Meteorology: Long-range weather, climate and hydrology, http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/
Bureau of Meteorology: Water Data Online, http://www.bom.gov.au/waterdata/ (last access: 8 November 2022), 2022b.
Cloke, H. L. and Pappenberger, F.: Ensemble flood forecasting: A review, J. Hydrol., 375, 613–626, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.06.005, 2009.
Engeland, K. and Steinsland, I.: Probabilistic postprocessing models for flow forecasts for a system of catchments and several lead times, Water Resour. Res., 50, 182–197, https://doi.org/10.1002/2012WR012757, 2014.
Evin, G., Thyer, M., Kavetski, D., McInerney, D., and Kuczera, G.: Comparison of joint versus postprocessor approaches for hydrological uncertainty estimation accounting for error autocorrelation and heteroscedasticity, Water Resour. Res., 50, 2350–2375, https://doi.org/10.1002/2013WR014185, 2014.
Gibbs, M. S., McInerney, D., Humphrey, G., Thyer, M. A., Maier, H. R., Dandy, G. C., and Kavetski, D.: State updating and calibration period selection to improve dynamic monthly streamflow forecasts for an environmental flow management application, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 22, 871–887, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-871-2018, 2018.
Hersbach, H.: Decomposition of the Continuous Ranked Probability Score for Ensemble Prediction Systems, Weather Forecast., 15, 559–570, 2000.
Hidalgo-Muñoz, J. M., Gámiz-Fortis, S. R., Castro-Díez, Y., Argüeso, D., and Esteban-Parra, M. J.: Long-range seasonal streamflow forecasting over the Iberian Peninsula using large-scale atmospheric and oceanic information, Water Resour. Res., 51, 3543–3567, https://doi.org/10.1002/2014WR016826, 2015.
Hudson, D., Alves, O., Hendon, H. H., Lim, E., Liu, G., Luo, J. J., MacLachlan, C., Marshall, A. G., Shi, L., Wang, G., Wedd, R., Young, G., Zhao, M., and Zhou, X.: ACCESS-S1 The new Bureau of Meteorology multi-week to seasonal prediction system, Journal of Southern Hemisphere Earth System Sciences, 67, 132–159, https://doi.org/10.22499/3.6703.001, 2017.
Hunter, J., Thyer, M., McInerney, D., and Kavetski, D.: Achieving high-quality probabilistic predictions from hydrological models calibrated with a wide range of objective functions, J. Hydrol., 603, 126578, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2021.126578, 2021.
Kavetski, D. and Clark, M. P.: Ancient numerical daemons of conceptual hydrological modeling. Part 2: Impact of time stepping scheme on model analysis and prediction, Water Resour. Res., 46, W10511, https://doi.org/10.1029/2009WR008894, 2010.
Li, M., Wang, Q. J., Bennett, J. C., and Robertson, D. E.: Error reduction and representation in stages (ERRIS) in hydrological modelling for ensemble streamflow forecasting, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 20, 3561–3579, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-20-3561-2016, 2016.
McInerney, D., Thyer, M., Kavetski, D., Lerat, J., and Kuczera, G.: Improving probabilistic prediction of daily streamflow by identifying Pareto optimal approaches for modeling heteroscedastic residual errors, Water Resour. Res., 53, 2199–2239, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016WR019168, 2017.
McInerney, D., Kavetski, D., Thyer, M., Lerat, J., and Kuczera, G.: Benefits of explicit treatment of zero flows in probabilistic hydrological modelling of ephemeral catchments, Water Resour. Res., 55, 11035–11060, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018wr024148, 2019.
McInerney, D., Thyer, M., Kavetski, D., Laugesen, R., Tuteja, N., and Kuczera, G.: Multi-temporal hydrological residual error modelling for seamless sub-seasonal streamflow forecasting, Water Resour. Res., 56, e2019WR026979, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019wr026979, 2020.
McInerney, D., Thyer, M., Kavetski, D., Laugesen, R., Woldemeskel, F., Tuteja, N., and Kuczera, G.: Improving the Reliability of Sub-Seasonal Forecasts of High and Low Flows by Using a Flow-Dependent Nonparametric Model, Water Resour. Res., 57, e2020WR029317, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020WR029317, 2021a.
McInerney, D., Thyer, M., and Kavetski, D.: Supporting data for “Improving the reliability of sub-seasonal forecasts of high and low flows by using a flow-dependent non-parametric model” by McInerney et al. (2021), The University of Adelaide [data set], https://doi.org/10.25909/14604180.v1, 2021b.
Mendoza, P. A., Wood, A. W., Clark, E., Rothwell, E., Clark, M. P., Nijssen, B., Brekke, L. D., and Arnold, J. R.: An intercomparison of approaches for improving operational seasonal streamflow forecasts, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 21, 3915–3935, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-3915-2017, 2017.
Murray-Darling Basin Authority: Basin Environmental Watering Outlook for 2019–20, Murray-Darling Basin Authority, ISBN 978-1-925762-20-4,
https://www.mdba.gov.au/sites/default/files/pubs/Basin-environmental-watering-outlook-2019-2020.pdf (last access: 8 November 2022), 2019.
Pagano, T. C., Shrestha, D. L., Wang, Q. J., Robertson, D., and Hapuarachchi, P.: Ensemble dressing for hydrological applications, Hydrol. Process., 27, 106–116, https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.9313, 2013.
Pal, I., Lall, U., Robertson, A. W., Cane, M. A., and Bansal, R.: Predictability of Western Himalayan river flow: melt seasonal inflow into Bhakra Reservoir in northern India, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 17, 2131–2146, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-17-2131-2013, 2013.
Perrin, C., Michel, C., and Andreassian, 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.
Pokhrel, P., Wang, Q. J., and Robertson, D. E.: The value of model averaging and dynamical climate model predictions for improving statistical seasonal streamflow forecasts over Australia, Water Resour. Res., 49, 6671–6687, https://doi.org/10.1002/wrcr.20449, 2013.
Schepen, A., Zhao, T., Wang, Q. J., and Robertson, D. E.: A Bayesian modelling method for post-processing daily sub-seasonal to seasonal rainfall forecasts from global climate models and evaluation for 12 Australian catchments, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 22, 1615–1628, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-1615-2018, 2018.
Souza Filho, F. A. and Lall, U.: Seasonal to interannual ensemble streamflow forecasts for Ceara, Brazil: Applications of a multivariate, semiparametric algorithm, Water Resour. Res., 39, 1307, https://doi.org/10.1029/2002WR001373, 2003.
Verkade, J. S., Brown, J. D., Davids, F., Reggiani, P., and Weerts, A. H.: Estimating predictive hydrological uncertainty by dressing deterministic and ensemble forecasts; a comparison, with application to Meuse and Rhine, J. Hydrol., 555, 257–277, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2017.10.024, 2017.
Wang, Q. J., Pagano, T. C., Zhou, S. L., Hapuarachchi, H. A. P., Zhang, L., and Robertson, D. E.: Monthly versus daily water balance models in simulating monthly runoff, J. Hydrol., 404, 166–175, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2011.04.027, 2011.
Wang, Q. J., Bennett, J. C., Robertson, D. E., and Li, M.: A Data Censoring Approach for Predictive Error Modeling of Flow in Ephemeral Rivers, Water Resour. Res., 56, e2019WR026128, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019WR026128, 2020.
Welsh, W. D., Vaze, J., Dutta, D., Rassam, D., Rahman, J. M., Jolly, I. D., Wallbrink, P., Podger, G. M., Bethune, M., Hardy, M. J., Teng, J., and Lerat, J.: An integrated modelling framework for regulated river systems, Environ. Modell. Softw., 39, 81–102, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2012.02.022, 2013.
Wilks, D. S.: On “field significance” and the false discovery rate, J. Appl. Meteorol. Clim., 45, 1181–1189, 2006.
Woldemeskel, F., McInerney, D., Lerat, J., Thyer, M., Kavetski, D., Shin, D., Tuteja, N., and Kuczera, G.: Evaluating post-processing approaches for monthly and seasonal streamflow forecasts, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 22, 6257–6278, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-6257-2018, 2018.
Yang, X., Liu, Q., He, Y., Luo, X., and Zhang, X.: Comparison of daily and sub-daily SWAT models for daily streamflow simulation in the Upper Huai River Basin of China, Stoch. Env. Res. Risk A., 30, 959–972, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-015-1099-0, 2016.
Zhao, T. and Zhao, J.: Joint and respective effects of long- and short-term forecast uncertainties on reservoir operations, J. Hydrol., 517, 83–94, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.04.063, 2014.
Short summary
Streamflow forecasts a day to a month ahead are highly valuable for water resources management. Current practice often develops forecasts for specific lead times and aggregation timescales. In contrast, a single, seamless forecast can serve multiple lead times/timescales. This study shows seamless forecasts can match the performance of forecasts developed specifically at the monthly scale, while maintaining quality at other lead times. Hence, users need not sacrifice capability for performance.
Streamflow forecasts a day to a month ahead are highly valuable for water resources management....
